Places of Worship Act and The Legal Issues in the Sambhal Mosque Case

Syllabus :GS 2/Governance 

In News

• Recently, a Petition was filed, alleging the Jama Masjid in Sambhal was built on an ancient Hari Har Mandir site.

About the recent issue 

• A district court in Sambhal ordered a survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid, following a petition claiming that it was built on the site of a Hindu temple by Mughal emperor Babur in 1526.
• The petitioners (including a local mahant and advocate Hari Shankar Jain) sought to change the religious character of the site.
  • The survey, especially its second phase on November 24, triggered protests in Sambhal, leading to violence and police firing.

Legal Context

• The mosque is a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904, and is listed by the Archaeological Survey of India as a Monument of National Importance.
• The court’s order was passed ex-parte, meaning the petition was accepted without hearing both parties, raising concerns of fairness.

Role of Places of Worship Act, 1991

• Background: The Places of Worship Act, 1991, was enacted following claims by Hindu groups, regarding the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah mosque in Mathura, in addition to the Babri Masjid dispute.
  • The Act aimed to preserve the status quo of places of worship as they were on August 15, 1947, and prevent further disputes over these sites.
• Objective of the Act: The Act’s goal was to freeze the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947.
  • It sought to prevent new claims by any group regarding the historical status of places of worship and to ensure communal harmony.
• Main Features of the Act: The religious character of a place of worship must remain the same as it was on August 15, 1947.
  • It bars any conversion of a place of worship to a different denomination or religion.
  • All pending legal proceedings regarding the conversion of the status of places of worship as of August 15, 1947, were to be terminated.
  • Legal proceedings can only continue if they concern changes to the status after the cut-off date (August 15, 1947).
• Exceptions: The Act does not apply to ancient monuments covered by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites Act, 1958, or any disputes that were settled before the Act’s commencement.
  • The Act excludes the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute in Ayodhya.
• Penal Provisions: Anyone attempting to change the religious character of a place of worship faces imprisonment (up to 3 years) and a fine.
  • Those who abet or participate in such actions are also liable for punishment.

Challenges to the Act

• The law is being challenged on the grounds that it bars judicial review, which is a basic constitutional principle.
• The law imposes an arbitrary, irrational retrospective cutoff date (August 15, 1947), which critics argue is unjust.
• It is claimed that the law abridges the right to religion of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs by preventing them from asserting claims to disputed religious sites.

Supreme Court’s View on the Act

• In 2022, the Supreme Court noted that an inquiry into the religious character of a place as it existed on August 15, 1947, may be allowed, but changing the religious nature is prohibited.
  • This interpretation has opened the door for district courts to hear such suits, despite the 1991 law’s restrictions on conversion of places of worship.

Conclusion and Way Forward 

• The recent  cases underscores the challenges of balancing constitutional principles like secularism, judicial review, and religious rights, all while navigating the delicate issue of preserving the religious character of historical monuments. 
• Ultimately, it remains to be seen whether the legal system will be able to uphold the intent of the Places of Worship Act or whether the courts will find room for exceptions, as some petitioners have suggested, to allow claims over specific disputed religious sites.
•  The matter continues to evolve, and the Court’s intervention in upcoming hearings will likely shape the future course of these disputes.

Source: TH