Socialist Party Initiates Online Campaign to Address Non-Implementation of Places of Worship Act, 1991

Lucknow- Controversy arose when the Allahabad High Court allowed a survey at the Gyan Vapi mosque in Varanasi.

Similarly, in December 2023, the High Court allowed a similar survey at the Shahi Idgah in Mathura on the grounds that it needs to be determined what existed before the construction of the Mosque at the site.

Recently, Indore High Court allowed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to survey the Bhojshala/Kamal Maula Mosque in Dhar district, Madhya Pradesh. The site is an ASI-protected, 11th Century monument. Under an agreement with the ASI in 2003, puja is performed in the temple by Hindus every Tuesday and Namaz offered every Friday. Hindus have held that the complex is a Saraswati temple.

Many legal experts term it to be a violation of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which preserves the status quo at all religious places as they were in 1947.

Section 3 of the Act prohibits the conversion of any place of worship from one religious denomination to another and restricts any legal disputes related to such conversions.

It was enacted to prevent communal tensions and conflicts arising from disputes over religious places. Section 4(1) ensures that the religious identity of a place of worship remains the same as it was on August 15, 1947. The Act excluded the Ayodhya Land Dispute.

An online petition floated by the Socialist Party (India) seeks to stop the violation and non-implementation of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.

"Recent controversies surrounding the Places of Worship Act, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), have posed significant challenges to one of the most cherished tenets of secularism—faith. Faith is a deeply personal matter, constituting the right of individuals to their personal relations with their maker, creator, or cosmos. The Act not only seeks to protect the status quo of existing places of worship but also safeguards the faith of the people attached to these places,” reads the online petition addressed to the President and the Chief Justice of India.

In a conversation with The Mooknayak, Sandeep Pandey, General Secretary of the Socialist Party (India), underscored the significance of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, particularly in light of the Babri Masjid controversy that once engulfed the nation.

Pandey emphasized that the Act was conceived to forestall the potential Pandora's Box of communal discord that could arise in the absence of legal safeguards. However, he lamented the current trend where courts seemingly disregard the Act's provisions, as evidenced by their permission for surveys ostensibly aimed at uncovering historical truths beneath religious structures.

Pandey questioned the necessity of such surveys, especially when they disrupt the sanctity of religious spaces. He pointed out a troubling example where prayers were subsequently permitted within the basement of a mosque following a court-ordered survey. This deviation from the Act's intended purpose raises concerns about the erosion of its protective measures and the implications for communal harmony.

Pandey further advocated for a shift in focus towards endeavors that foster nation-building instead of entangling in contentious legal battles. As a recipient of the Magsaysay Award, he emphasized the importance of collective action, citing plans to petition the courts based on the amassed signatures from the online campaign.

Critics of the Act contend that it undermines the fundamental rights of affected parties. They argue that the Act's cut-off date disregards historical injustices and precludes redressal for encroachments predating 1947. This contention has led to multiple petitions challenging the Act's constitutional validity.

One such challenge comes from Maharaja Kumari Krishna Priya, representing the Kashi Royal Family, who filed an intervention application before the Supreme Court. Priya asserts that the Act epitomizes legislation passed undemocratically, devoid of consideration for the fundamental rights of affected parties. Specifically, she highlights the Act's failure to address the rights of formerly colonized indigenous communities seeking to reclaim occupied religious and cultural sites.