Vajram-And-RaviVajram-And-Ravi
hamburger-icon

Supreme Court's Ruling on the Places of Worship Act, 1991: Key Insights

13-12-2024

08:30 AM

timer
1 min read
Supreme Court's Ruling on the Places of Worship Act, 1991: Key Insights Blog Image

What’s in today’s article?

  • Why in News?
  • Places of Worship Act, 1991
  • Background of the case
  • Core question before the SC and the previous rulings on the issue
  • December 2024 Ruling – key directions by the SC

Why in News?

The Supreme Court barred civil courts from registering fresh suits challenging the ownership or title of any place of worship and from ordering surveys of disputed religious sites until further orders.

Pending suits were also restricted from issuing "effective" interim or final orders, including surveys, until the next hearing on February 17, 2025.

Places of Worship Act, 1991

  • Historical Context
    • Passed during the Ramjanmabhoomi movement in the late 1980s, which aimed to build a Ram temple at the Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya.
    • Concerned about potential similar movements and litigation, the PV Narasimha Rao-led government enacted the law to prevent future disputes.
  • Objective of the Act
    • The Act was enacted to:
      • Prohibit conversion of any place of worship to maintain its religious character as it existed on August 15, 1947.
      • Prevent conversion both within a religion (e.g., from one denomination to another) and between religions.
  • Structure:
    • The Act comprises seven sections:
      • Sections 1 & 2: Title and definitions.
      • Section 3: Bars conversion of places of worship.
      • Section 4: Declares the religious character of places of worship and bars court jurisdiction.
      • Section 5: Excludes Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid from its provisions.
  • Legal Provisions
    • Sections 4(1)
      • Declares that the religious character of a place of worship as of August 15, 1947, must be maintained.
    • Section 4(2):
      • Existing suits: Legal proceedings related to the conversion of a place of worship’s religious character, pending before a court on August 15, 1947, shall abate.
      • Fresh suits: New legal proceedings on such matters cannot be instituted.
      • Exception: Suits or appeals regarding conversions occurring after the cut-off date (August 15, 1947) can continue.
      • Exceptions to Section 4: The following are exceptions where the provisions of Section 4 do not apply:
        • Protected Sites: Places classified as ancient monuments or archaeological sites under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act.
        • Resolved Legal Cases: Cases or appeals already decided, resolved, or settled before the Act came into effect.
        • Mutual Settlements: Disputes where parties settled the matter before the Act’s commencement.
        • Change by Acquiescence: Places of worship whose religious character was altered by mutual agreement.
        • Time-Barred Cases: Conversion cases that occurred before the Act and cannot be challenged due to the expiration of the time limit under existing laws.
    • Section 5:
      • Excludes the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case from the Act's provisions.

Background of the case

  • Case before the court
    • The present case is related to the petitions challenging the Constitutional validity of Places of Worship Act, 1991.
    • The petitioners had challenged the Act on two grounds:
      • It bars judicial review, which is a basic feature of the Constitution, 
      • It imposes an arbitrary irrational retrospective cutoff date and abridges the right to religion of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs.
  • Timeline

Core question before the SC and pervious ruling on the issue

  • Core Question Before the Supreme Court
    • Can district courts hearing civil suits on title or ownership of places of worship effectively undermine the purpose of the 1991 Places of Worship Act, which aims to resolve such disputes?
  • 2022 Supreme Court Observations
    • The Supreme Court previously ruled that surveying a place of worship does not inherently violate the 1991 Act.
    • A three-judge bench led by then CJI DY Chandrachud examined the interplay of religious identities in places of worship, highlighting "hybrid character" scenarios, such as the coexistence of Zoroastrian and Christian religious symbols in the same complex.
    • The bench clarified it would not opine on whether ascertaining the religious character of a place violates Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.
  • Ayodhya Verdict and Its Relevance
    • In the November 2029 Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi judgment, the Supreme Court recognized the Places of Worship Act as part of the Constitution's basic structure.
    • The Act was viewed as crucial for preserving secularism and ensuring the protection of religious sites as they existed on August 15, 1947.
    • The verdict recognized that historical wrongs cannot justify actions that disturb the present and future, emphasizing the Act's role in healing past wounds and ensuring communal harmony.

December 2024 Ruling – key directions by the SC

  • Key Directions from the Bench
    • The Supreme Court emphasized that while fresh suits may be filed, no action will be taken on them, nor will ongoing proceedings progress.
    • Directed the Union Government to clarify its position on the constitutional validity of the Act within four weeks.
  • Key observations made
    • The Supreme Court noted that issues regarding the constitutional validity, scope, and ambit of the Act require detailed examination.
    • Highlighted that lower civil courts must defer to principles laid out in the Ayodhya judgment, stating, “Civil courts cannot race with the Supreme Court.”
  • Larger constitutional questions
    • SC noted that even without the Act, constitutional principles might bar suits seeking to alter the religious character of places of worship.
    • It acknowledged petitions questioning whether the Act restricts judicial review powers, adding another layer of constitutional scrutiny.

Q.1. What is the core issue before the Supreme Court regarding the Places of Worship Act, 1991?

The core issue is whether civil courts can override the provisions of the Act, which aims to preserve the religious character of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947, by allowing disputes over ownership and title to be challenged.

Q.2. What did the Supreme Court emphasize in its December 2024 ruling on the Places of Worship Act?

The Supreme Court emphasized that while new suits can be filed, no action will be taken on them. It also directed the Union Government to clarify its position on the constitutional validity of the Act, emphasizing the need for deference to the Ayodhya judgment.

News: Places of Worship Act: How SC undid what then CJI Chandrachud allowed two years ago | Indian Express | News Laundry