The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991

"Law and justice are not always the same. When they aren’t, destroying the law may be the first step toward changing it."

Gloria Steinem

Context:

The Supreme Court of India on December 12, 2024 barred civil courts across the country from registering fresh suits challenging the ownership and title of any place of worship, and from ordering surveys of disputed religious places until further orders.

What is the Places of Worship Act, 1991?

On 18 September 1991, Parliament passed the Places of Worship Act, 1991.
The law was passed with the object of prohibiting conversion of any place of worship and to provide for the maintenance of the “religious character” of any place of worship as it existed on the 15th day of August, 1947.
The Act does not apply to the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid.
The Act had come into being at a time when the communal tension, more specifically regarding the Ram Janmabhoomi movement and the dispute regarding Babri Masjid, had escalated.
It was brought in by the Congress government headed by Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao to avoid further religious conflicts and maintain communal harmony.

What prompted the introduction of the Places of Worship Act of 1991?

When the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute was at its height, in the early 1990s, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and other Hindu organisations also laid claim to two other mosques the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah in Mathura.

Although the radicals in the Hindu camp often spoke of reclaiming 3,000 mosques across the country, they threatened to start agitations only in respect to these two places of worship.
The demolition resulted in several months of intercommunal rioting between India's Hindu and Muslim communities, causing the death of at least 2,000 people.
In this backdrop, the P.V. Narasimha Rao government enacted, in September 1991, a special law to freeze the status of places of worship as they were on August 15, 1947.
It was hoped that the legislation would help the preservation of communal harmony in the long run.
The law kept the disputed structure at Ayodhya out of its purview, mainly because it was the subject of prolonged litigation.
It was also aimed at providing scope for a possible negotiated settlement.

Enlist key provisions of the Places of Worship Act, 1991?

The key provisions of Places of Worship Act,1991 are as follows:

Provisions	Analysis
Section 3- Prohibition of Conversion	The Act prohibits the conversion of any place of worship from one religion to another or even from one sect to another within the same religion. This includes any alterations that may change the religious character of the site
Section 4(1)- Maintenance of Religious Character	The Places of Worship Act, 1991 mandates that the religious character of all places of worship must remain as it was on August 15, 1947.
Section 4(2)- Abatement of Pending Cases	The Act declares that any ongoing legal proceedings concerning the conversion of a place of worship's religious character before August 15, 1947, will be terminated, and no new cases can be initiated.
Section 6 - Punishment for Contravention	The Act provides for three years of imprisonment or an amount of fine as determined by a magistrate for contravening any provision.

What are the exceptions to the Places of Worship Act, 1991?

Section 5 of the Places of Worship Act, 1991 provides for the certain exceptions to the Act which are as follows:

Provision	Analysis
Ancient and historical monuments	Places of worship that are also ancient and historical monuments or archaeological sites are exempt from the Act. These are protected by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act of 1958.
Settled cases	Cases that have been resolved or disposed of, or disputes that have been settled by mutual agreement are exempt from the Act.
Conversions before the Act	Conversions that occurred before the Act came into effect are exempt from the Act.
Ram JanmabhoomiBabri Masjid	The Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, including any associated legal proceedings, is exempt from the Act.

Enlist a recent series of events?

Date	Event
28th October 2020	On 28 October 2020, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, an advocate and a former spokesperson for the Delhi unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party, filed a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Places of Worship Act, 1991.
12th March 2021	A division bench led by the then Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, issued notice in the matter.
May 2022	During a hearing regarding the Gyanvapi Masjid Survey, CJI D.Y. Chandrachud clarified that ascertaining the “religious character” of a place of worship is not barred under the Act. While determining religious character is allowed, conversion remains prohibited. This essentially means that an inquiry into what the nature of the place of worship was on August 15, 1947 can be allowed, even if that nature cannot be subsequently changed.
14th November 2022	On this day, a Supreme Court Bench led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud granted some time to the Union Government, through the Solicitor General Mr. Tushar Mehta to conduct deliberations for clearing their stance upon the The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.
November 2024	A deadly violence erupted in Sambhal following a District Court‟s order to survey the Shahi Jama Masjid.
6th December 2024	A district Court directed registration of a suit disputing the presence of a Hindu temple under the Atala Mosque in Jaunpur.
7th December 2024	The chief justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna formed a Special 3-Judge Bench comprising Justices P.V. Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan to hear the matter on
12th December, 2024	The Supreme Court of India (SC) barred civil courts from registering new suits or passing orders in pending cases related to the Places of Worship Act. The SC also ordered that no surveys of places of worship be conducted until the case is concluded.

What was the stance of various political parties over the Places of Worship Act, 1991, when the bill was introduced?

The 1991 Act had been brought in by the then Congress government of Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao at a time when the Ram temple movement was at its peak.
The Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha by then Home Minister S B Chavan with the objective of “prohibiting conversion of places of worship and to provide for the maintenance of their religious character as it existed on August 15, 1947”.
The Bill was introduced in the 1991 Monsoon Session, and saw at least eight hours of debate, marred by frequent interruptions and expunged remarks, with intense opposition from the BJP‟s side.

Political party	Stand
Indian National Congress	The Congress had promised to introduce the Bill in its 1991 election manifesto and it was also mentioned in the President‟s address to Parliament earlier that year. Home Minister S B Chavan said after introducing the Bill “I am sure that enactment of this Bill will go a long way in helping restore communal amity and goodwill.” The act seeks to achieve this objective of putting an immediate end to such unfortunate conflicts and foreclose any new controversies.
BJP stand	The BJP said the Bill fell “outside the legislative competence” of the Lok Sabha. Jaswant Singh, then the BJP MP from Chittorgarh in Rajasthan argued that the Bill was violative of the Constitution since it legislated on an issue reserved for state governments. BJP MP Ram Naik, from Bombay North, who went on to become a Union minister under Vajpayee, called it the “blackest Bill in Indian Parliament”.
Communist Party of India (Marxist)	The CPI(M)‟s Somnath Chatterjee, the then MP from Bengal‟s Bolpur, who would later become the Lok Sabha Speaker under the first UPA government, said his party would have preferred the inclusion of the Ayodhya dispute, but they accepted the Bill given that Ayodhya had become a “great emotional issue” that should be solved by “mutual discussion”.
All India Majlis-eIttehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM)	Hyderabad’s then AIMIM MP Sultan Salahuddin Owaisi argued that the Bill would help prevent further politicisation of religious issues.
Janta Dal	The late Ram Vilas Paswan, who was the Janata Dal MP from Bihar‟s Rosera at the time, said the Bill was “better late than never”. He argued that if the Congress party had brought such a legislation earlier the Ram JanmabhoomiBabri Masjid dispute would not have arisen.

Enlist various religious disputed sites where suits were filed?

Sites	News
Shahi Jama Masjid, Sambhal	The Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal is the oldest surviving Mughal-era mosque in South Asia. Right-wing Hindu groups in India claim that it is the site of a temple and the tenth avatar of the Hindu god Vishnu, Kalki, will appear among the descendants of the Brahmin priest of that temple. A suit was filed by eight plaintiffs claiming that the mosque is actually „Shri Hari Har Temple‟. Subsequently, two surveys of the mosque were conducted in quick succession on November 19 and 24. The second survey led to violence between local Muslim residents and the Uttar Pradesh police, in which five Muslim residents were killed.
Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi	The Gyanvapi Mosque is located in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. The first case was filed in a Varanasi civil court in 1991 by devotees of „Swayambhu Lord Vishweshwar’. They claimed that the Gyanvapi Mosque site was originally a temple and asked for permission to worship on the property. A civil suit has also been filed by five plaintiffs, seeking a decree declaring that they are entitled to offer prayers within the mosque complex. In 2023, the Allahabad High Court turned down the petitions filed by the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid against the Orders of the trial court passed on October 18, 1997 and September 23, 1998 and holding that the suit seeking determination of the religious character of the Gyanvapi Mosque was not barred by the Places of Worship Act. On merits, the high court held that the “religious character” of the Gyanvapi Mosque could only be ascertained by the trial court after considering the pleadings of the parties and evidence led in support of the pleadings, adding that the Act of 1991 only bars conversion of places of worship but it does not define or lay down any procedure for determining the religious character of a place of worship that existed on August 15, 1947.
Shahi Eidgah Masjid in Mathura	Several right-wing Hindu organisations claim that the mosque was built at the birthplace of the Hindu god Krishna. Hindus want possession of the land and the right to worship in the mosque till their petitions are disposed of. A Bench headed by CJI Khanna is currently seized of the matter. The Bench has continued to stay the High Court Order directing inspection of the mosque.
Ajmer Dargah in Rajasthan	Recently, a Civil Court in Ajmer issued notices on a suit claiming that a Lord Shiva temple existed at the site of the 13th Century dargah of Sufi mystic Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti in Ajmer.

What are the key issues with the Places of Worship Act, 1991?

Issues	Analysis
Violation of Article 14	The petitioner claims that the Act arbitrarily freezes the status of places of worship as of August 15, 1947, without considering historical injustices or the rights of affected communities.
Violation of Articles 25 and 26	The Act restricts religious freedom by preventing communities from reclaiming or restoring their places of worship. This, as per the petitioner, infringes upon the right to freely practice and manage religious affairs.
Contradiction with the Basic Structure Doctrine	The petitioner contends that the Act undermines secularism, a fundamental component of the Constitution‟s basic structure. By denying judicial remedies, the Act allegedly creates an imbalance in the treatment of historical grievances.
Bar on Judicial Review	Critics argue that the Act prevents judicial review, which is a fundamental aspect of the Constitution. Petitioners believe that this restriction undermines the checks and balances system and limits the judiciary's role in protecting constitutional rights.

What is the Ayodhya case, and what was its verdict?

3 parties who fought the case in the supreme court

The Supreme Court of India's verdict on the Ayodhya title dispute was delivered on November 9, 2019:

Beneficiary	Description
Land for the temple	The court awarded the 2.77-acre disputed land to the deity Ram Lalla Virajman for the construction of a temple.
Land for the mosque	The court ordered the government to give five acres of land to the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board to build a mosque. The land is to be located in a prominent place in Ayodhya.

10.

What is the present status of Gyanvapi and Shahi Idgah mosque?

Places of Worship	Present status
Gyanvapi Mosque, Varanasi	A district court in Varanasi had entertained a civil suit by a temple trust claiming the site of the Gyanvapi Mosque in the holy city, but the order has been challenged in the Allahabad High Court, citing the statutory bar on such suits that seek to alter the places of worship. The matter is still pending.
Shahi Idgah, Mathura	The Shahi Idgah in proximity to the Krishna temple in Mathura is the subject of an agreement between the Krishna Janmabhumi Sanstha and the Idgah Committee, under which the land belongs to the former and the management is with the latter.

11.

Did the Supreme Court refer to The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 in its Ayodhya judgment?

In the landmark 2019 Ayodhya verdict, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court described the Act as integral to the “basic structure of the Constitution.”
In its verdict, the Supreme Court commended the enactment as one that preserved the constitutional value of secularism by not permitting the status of a place of worship to be changed.
The state has, by enacting the law, enforced a constitutional commitment and operationalised its constitutional obligations to uphold the equality of all religions and secularism, which is a part of the basic features of the Constitution.
According to the Supreme Court Places of Worship Act “imposes a non-derogable obligation towards enforcing our commitment to secularism.”
The court observed that “non-retrogression is a foundational feature of the fundamental constitutional principles, of which secularism is a core component.”
Although the Act was not directly challenged in that particular case, the Court‟s recognition of its importance in upholding constitutional values could play a significant role in shaping its scrutiny in the ongoing legal proceedings.

12.

On what grounds is The Places of Worship Act, 1991 challenged in the Supreme Court?

The lead Petition challenging the Act was filed by BJP leader and lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay in 2020, who alleged that the Act violates Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution by restricting the right to practice and manage religious affairs.
He argues that the Act is discriminatory, barring religious communities from approaching courts to reclaim places of worship and questioning the then Centre’s authority to enact such legislation.
Other Petitioners include the Vishwa Bhadra Pujari Purohit Mahasangh, represented by Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, and BJP leader Subramanian Swamy.
Subramanian Swamy calls the Act “void ab initio,” claiming it infringes on Article 25 by barring Hindus from praying at temples converted during foreign invasions and seeks the same exemption granted to the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site for the Kashi Vishwanath and Krishna Janmabhoomi Mathura temples.
The petitioners have challenged the Act on two key grounds:

Ground	Provision
Violation of judicial review	The petitioners have argued that the Act undermines judicial review by extinguishing existing claims at the time of its enactment and prohibiting new claims in courts.
Arbitrary nature of Act	The petitioners contend that the Act is arbitrary for retrospectively selecting August 15, 1947, as the cut-off date to determine the religious character of places of worship.

13.

What will be the impact of the recent Supreme Court ruling?

The Supreme Court of India on December 12, 2024 barred civil courts across the country from registering fresh suits challenging the ownership and title of any place of worship, and from ordering surveys of disputed religious places until further orders.
The order applies to both civil suits that are already pending (there are several) and to those that may be filed in the future.
The order bars the “registration” of cases by civil courts.
Consequently, civil courts also cannot order a survey, or seek a report from the Archeological Survey of India (ASI), as they have done in several recent instances.
All these civil cases have raised questions on the title of mosques, arguing that they were built on Hindu religious structures that were razed by medieval rulers.
The Supreme Court also observed that court orders in these civil suits could be challenged on the grounds that they violate larger constitutional principles of secularism and the rule of law, irrespective of the Places of Worship Act.
Meanwhile, the SC will have to hear the constitutional challenge to the 1991 Act.

14.

Enlist core issues that are to be resolved by the Supreme Court of India?

The Supreme Court has identified several critical issues that require deliberation:

Sections 3 and 4 of the Places of Worship Act, 1991	Whether Sections 3 and 4 of the Places of Worship Act, 1991, violate Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 25, 26 and 29 of the Indian Constitution.
Judicial remedies	Whether the Act denies access to judicial remedies, which are protected under Articles 32 and 226.
Historical injustices	The petition argues that freezing the status of religious sites as of August 15, 1947, disregards historical wrongs suffered by various communities.
Conflicts with the secular fabric of the Constitution	Whether the Act conflicts with the secular fabric of the Constitution by preventing the redressal of legitimate grievances.
Role of District Courts	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.
Other clarifications	The resolution of these issues will clarify the legal boundaries of secularism, historical grievances, and the protection of religious places.

15.

What are Hydra Heads?

In his recent speech at the First Justice A.M. Ahmadi Memorial Lecture on „Secularism and the Indian Constitution‟, former Supreme Court judge Rohinton Nariman compared the recent suits disputing the origin and existence of not only mosques, but also dargahs, as “hydra heads” which need to be cauterised.
The former judge termed the per curiam (anonymous) Ram Janmabhoomi judgment which gave the site of the demolished Babri Masjid to the Hindu claimants — as a travesty of justice against secularism, but noted that the verdict‟s only silver lining was that it too had upheld the Places of Worship Act.

16.

What is the view of different sections of society on The Places of Worship Act, 1991?

The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991, has been a subject of enduring controversy since its enactment.
Fundamentally, the Act invites critical examination of whether it represents a moral framework or a contentious settlement disguised in the language of secularism.

Sections of society	View
Majoritarian view	The Act has sparked significant debate since inception. Hindutva proponents argue that it unfairly restricts Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs from reclaiming places of worship allegedly converted after independence, hindering religious restitution. Hindu activists argue that the Act perpetuates religious injustice and undermines the democratic rights of Hindus, making it both morally and constitutionally flawed. The claim that the Act promotes communal harmony is flawed as true secularism and harmony can only be achieved through justice for all communities, not appeasement.
Minority view	In contrast, secularists and minority groups defend the Act, viewing it as essential for preventing communal tensions and preserving religious harmony by safeguarding the existing character of places of worship. They believe that the Act protects the religious character of places of worship and safeguards against attempts to change it through legal or extralegal means.

Sections of society

View

Majoritarian view

The Act has sparked significant debate since inception.
Hindutva proponents argue that it unfairly restricts Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs from reclaiming places of worship allegedly converted after independence, hindering religious restitution.
Hindu activists argue that the Act perpetuates religious injustice and undermines the democratic rights of Hindus, making it both morally and constitutionally flawed.
The claim that the Act promotes communal harmony is flawed as true secularism and harmony can only be achieved through justice for all communities, not appeasement.

Minority view

In contrast, secularists and minority groups defend the Act, viewing it as essential for preventing communal tensions and preserving religious harmony by safeguarding the existing character of places of worship.
They believe that the Act protects the religious character of places of worship and safeguards against attempts to change it through legal or extralegal means.

17.

What are the views of Historians?

HIstorian	View
Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi, a history professor at Aligarh Muslim University	He pointed out that all the “disputes” were over heritage structures that were not likely to be built again. He favoured the Places of Worship Act, 1995 and said that our Constitution and lawmakers came up with the understanding that all those structures that India as an independent nation inherited would be maintained on an as-is-where-is basis. About the surveys, Rezavi said: “All that those surveys will say is that there is some stone below, some obstruction”. The penetrating surveys won‟t be able to tell whether it is a mosque or a temple etc. He argued that how does it make a difference if a temple was there beside an existing structure. Aurangzeb was a 17th century sovereign emperor who was not guided by a democracy and a constitution. He asked are we also going to punish Pushyamitra Sunga, who went on a demolition spree against Buddhist temples? He opined that one should not assign religion to architectural elements and using the material of earlier structures does not mean that they were broken
Ram Puniyani	Ram Puniyani, social activist and the chairman of the Centre for the Study of Society and Secularism, believes that the courts are unable today to withstand the pressure of communal politics. He opined that Majoritarian politics is in constant search for such issues and they can create hysteria and bend the legal case towards their end. The Supreme Court recognised that what happened in 1949 and 1992 was a crime.

HIstorian

View

Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi, a history professor at Aligarh Muslim University

He pointed out that all the “disputes” were over heritage structures that were not likely to be built again.
He favoured the Places of Worship Act, 1995 and said that our Constitution and lawmakers came up with the understanding that all those structures that India as an independent nation inherited would be maintained on an as-is-where-is basis.
About the surveys, Rezavi said: “All that those surveys will say is that there is some stone below, some obstruction”.
The penetrating surveys won‟t be able to tell whether it is a mosque or a temple etc.
He argued that how does it make a difference if a temple was there beside an existing structure.
Aurangzeb was a 17th century sovereign emperor who was not guided by a democracy and a constitution.
He asked are we also going to punish Pushyamitra Sunga, who went on a demolition spree against Buddhist temples?
He opined that one should not assign religion to architectural elements and using the material of earlier structures does not mean that they were broken

Ram Puniyani

Ram Puniyani, social activist and the chairman of the Centre for the Study of Society and Secularism, believes that the courts are unable today to withstand the pressure of communal politics.
He opined that Majoritarian politics is in constant search for such issues and they can create hysteria and bend the legal case towards their end.
The Supreme Court recognised that what happened in 1949 and 1992 was a crime.

What is the relevance of the topic for UPSC CSE?

For Prelims: The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.

For Mains: Indian Constitution, The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, Related Provisions

Check Complete UPSC CSE Syllabus

Know about UPSC Civil Services Exam

Some Previous Years Prelims Questions

Q1. Consider the following statements: (2020)

1. The Constitution of India defines its ‘Basic Structure’ in terms of federalism, secularism, fundamental rights and democracy.

2. The Constitution of India provides for ‘judicial review’ to safeguard the citizens’ liberties and to preserve the ideals on which the Constitution is based.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

(a) 1 only

(b) 2 only

(d) Neither 1 nor 2

Ans: (b)

Check UPSC Prelims Previous Year Question Papers

Some Previous Years Mains Questions

Q1. Are tolerance, assimilation and pluralism the key elements in the making of an Indian form of secularism? Justify your answer [2022]

Q2. What are the challenges to our cultural practices in the name of secularism? [2019]

Q3. What can France learn from the Indian Constitution’s approach to secularism? [2019]

Q4. How is the Indian concept of secularism different from the western model of secularism? Discuss. [2018]

Check UPSC Mains Previous Year Question Papers

Some Questions from This Year and Previous Years Interview Transcripts

Board Lt Gen Raj Shukla sir:

Do you know the Places of Worship Act?
What is its crux?
Why is there an issue in Gyanvapi etc?

Board B B Swain sir:

Tell me something about Places of worship act 1991?

Some Questions for QUIZ

Q1. Consider the following statements with respect to the Places of Worship Act, 1991.

1. It recognises only temples and mosques as a place of worship.

2. Selling or purchasing of places of worship is not prohibited under the Act.

3. The act aims to maintain the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947.

How many of the statements given above are correct?

(a) Only one

(b) Only two

(d) None

Ans: (b)

Q2. Which of the following rulers have constructed the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi?

(a) Babur

(b) Jahangir

(d) Balban

Ans: (c)

Q3. Which of the following rulers have constructed the Babri mosque in Ayodhya?