New Delhi — Member of Parliament and Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) President, Dr Thol Thirumavalavan, has filed an intervention application before the Supreme Court of India, seeking to defend the constitutionality of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.

The Act, which protects the religious character of places of worship as they stood on August 15, 1947, has come under challenge in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1246 of 2020 and related cases. These petitions argue that the Act disproportionately restricts the rights of certain religious groups.

Thirumavalavan, a prominent Dalit leader, practising Buddhist and social activist from Tamil Nadu, has invoked his background as a Member of Parliament, scholar, and advocate for social justice in his plea. He seeks permission to address the court with written and oral arguments to emphasize the broader implications of this legal challenge.

Advocate Disha Wadekar, who drafted the intervention application, and is representing Thirumavalavan in the court, told The Mooknayak that the application opposes the grounds and prayers advanced by the petitioners seeking to invalidate the Act.

The intervenor argues that even if we assume that certain mosques have been constructed after demolishing Hindu temples by invaders, then such claims have no end, as many Hindu temples have been erected on the ruins of Buddhist stupas. Thus, followers of Buddhist religion can claim a right to restore such temples to stupas.

Hence, overturning the Act could open a dangerous path of endless claims and counterclaims over historical grievances, thereby undermining communal harmony and threatening India’s secular fabric.

The Supreme Court Stay on New Cases Under Places of Worship Act, 1991

The Supreme Court, in the last week, ordered a halt to registering new lawsuits under the Places of Worship Act, 1991, and barred final orders in pending cases until further notice. A Special Bench led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna has given the Union government four weeks to respond to petitions challenging the Act's constitutionality.

The Act preserves the religious character of places of worship as they stood on August 15, 1947, but petitioners argue it infringes on the rights of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs to reclaim sites destroyed in the past. Critics also call the Act arbitrary, as it excludes Ayodhya but includes Mathura and Kashi.

Intervention applications from entities like the Gyanvapi Mosque and Shahi Masjid Eidgah Committees warn that repealing the Act could jeopardize communal harmony and trigger unrest. They also stress the Act’s role in maintaining stability over three decades, while noting the potential for its repeal to impact numerous ongoing legal disputes involving claims over mosques in Mathura and Varanasi.

Key Arguments in the Intervention Petition by VCK Chief

Policy Implications and Secularism 

The intervention application underscores the secular nature of the Places of Worship Act. Thirumavalavan’s plea cites the Supreme Court’s observations in the Ayodhya judgment (“M. Siddiq v. Suresh Das”), which described the Act as a cornerstone of India’s constitutional commitment to secularism. By freezing the religious character of places of worship as of 1947, the Act aims to prevent communal disharmony and uphold equality among all religions.

The application notes that the Act’s neutrality lies in its provisions, which apply uniformly to all religious denominations. Section 2(c) defines a “place of worship” in inclusive terms, covering temples, mosques, churches, monasteries, and other sites of public worship.

 Bar on Remedies, Not Rights 

Thirumavalavan clarifies that the Act does not strip individuals of their religious rights but imposes a temporal limitation on when legal challenges can be initiated. The Act’s Section 4(1) ensures that the religious character of places of worship as of August 15, 1947, cannot be altered. The petition highlights this distinction to argue that the Act is not discriminatory but protective of India’s pluralistic heritage.

Contesting Historical Narratives 

In his plea, Thirumavalavan critiques the petitioners’ reliance on historical accounts of temple destruction by “fundamentalist invaders” as subjective and contentious. Drawing on scholarly perspectives, he argues that history is inherently contested, and such narratives are often rewritten to suit the biases of those in power.

The intervention underscores the danger of opening floodgates to litigations based on selective historical interpretations. Thirumavalavan pleads that lifting the Act’s protections could escalate communal tensions and undermine the nation’s social fabric.

Historical Paradoxes and Precedents

 Thirumavalavan’s application delves into India’s complex religious history, highlighting how Hindu temples have been constructed on the ruins of Buddhist stupas, and Jain temples have been destroyed during sectarian conflicts. Citing historians such as D.N. Jha, the petition asserts that no single community has a monopoly on historical grievances. “The religious identity of the ‘invader’ has changed throughout history,” the petition argues, making it impractical and divisive to adjudicate such claims in contemporary courts.

" There is no one community that has consistently been the victim or the oppressor throughout the centuries. The destruction of a place of worship was often a sign of the position a religious denomination enjoyed in society at the time. While we may find a temple underneath a mosque, we are equally likely to find Buddhist and Jain monasteries underneath the temple. What, then, will be the ‘truest’ religious character of the place? It will be hard for the courts to answer this because neither are courts places for inquiry into historical evidence nor are historical narratives reliable pieces of evidence even if the courts were to undertake such an inquiry."

Broader Social Implications 

The intervention also raises concerns about the societal ramifications of altering the Act. Thirumavalavan contends that the Act’s repeal could result in endless litigations, inflaming communal tensions across the country. “Legal systems are ill-suited to resolve historical disputes rooted in contested narratives,” the plea states, emphasizing the need for legislative and historical solutions instead.

Historical and Legal References 

Thirumavalavan’s petition relies on landmark judgments and historical works to reinforce its points. He references Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s “Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Ancient India” to highlight how religious conflicts have evolved over centuries. The petition also cites instances of temple destruction by Hindu rulers against Buddhist and Jain sites to challenge the selective invocation of victimhood by certain groups.

As a representative of the Dalit community and a practising Buddhist, Thirumavalavan positions his intervention as a call for preserving communal harmony. “The Places of Worship Act reflects India’s commitment to non-retrogression and secular values,” he argues, urging the court to uphold its provisions as a safeguard against communal discord.

The challenge to the Places of Worship Act comes amid heightened debates over the historical ownership of religious sites in India. The Act’s defenders argue that it prevents the politicization of religious identities, while critics claim it suppresses legitimate grievances. The Supreme Court’s decision in these cases is likely to have far-reaching implications for India’s constitutional principles and social cohesion.