As the Ram Janmabhoomi campaign reached its climax, the Narasimha Rao government at the central enacted a new rule to deter Hindus across India from launching similar reclamation initiatives. This law was known as the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991. This article sheds light on what this act is and how it is a very big obstacle in the reclamation of Hindu temples.
The statement of objects and reasons for this act reads as follows: ‘An Act to prohibit 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, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto’. The statute says that the character of a place of worship freezes on August 15, 1947, which means that if a place of worship is a mosque as of August 15, 1947, it retains its mosque character even if it was originally a temple. The statute provides for strict punishments for anyone who alters or seeks to change the nature of any place of worship of one religious denomination or sector thereof into another section of the same or another faith.
The legislation allows for the abatement of any actions or proceedings in any court in the country pertaining to disputes over the nature of places of worship that were already ongoing at the time of the act’s enactment. The statute also prevents any actions or court proceedings filed after it goes into effect. The Ram Janmabhoomi problem was specifically excluded from the ambit of this statute.
When the government passed this act, it characterized it as legislation protecting the nation’s secular fabric. However, it effectively prevents Hindus, Jains, and Buddhists in India from restoring their dignity and respect after their places of worship were desecrated, demolished, and transformed into mosques by Muslim invaders. The statute safeguards mosques in Kashi, Mathura, and several other locations across the country that were erected on the remains of Hindu Temple.The act can be termed as an arbitrary legislation with a deep anti Hindu agenda as its prime focus. The legislature exceeded its legislative authority by enacting this law, which seeks to neutralize (indirectly legitimizing) the aggressions and radicalism of Islamic invaders while also attempting to impose injustice under the garb of secularism.
The act has various significant flaws. One issue is that it breaches Article 20 of the constitution’s ex post facto legal provision. According to this theory, a person cannot be held accountable for an act that was not a crime under any law when it was performed. Section 5 of this legislation punishes anybody who violates the restrictions of section 3. Sector 3 further states that no one shall convert any place of worship of any religious denomination or any sector thereof into a place of worship of another religious denomination or any section thereof.
Furthermore, the statute dismisses lawsuits and legal procedures retroactively, which is unfair, illogical, and arbitary.
The most contentious element of the legislation is the prohibition on future actions and judicial processes relating to the conversion of any places of worship. However, at the same time, it authorizes actions and judicial processes involving the conversion of a place of worship after August 15, 1947. As a result, if Hindus wish to reclaim their temples especially at places like Kashi, Mathura and other temples then under this law they cannot. Such claims are maintainable in the courts if it can be proven that the place of worship has or is thought to contain historical and archaeological ruins or relics that have been in existence for at least 100 years. However, if Hindus were able to reconstruct any temples that had previously been desecrated and demolished after August 15, 1947, then under this act legal action can be taken.
This is morally wrong, legally arbitrary, and a violation of the constitution because no dispute resolution mechanism is offered. The extinction of remedy occurs when further claims and proceedings are totally barred. This clearly violates the legislature’s authority under the constitution.
The act should be ruled unconstitutional. The Supreme Court adding salt to the injury further lauded the act during its Ram janmabhoomi verdict of Ayodhya, stating that ‘historical wrongs cannot be remedied by the people taking law into their own hands, however the act itself pushes aggrieved Hindu’s and individuals to take the law into their own hands to right the historical wrongs.
In the verdict, the Supreme Court stated that ‘cognisant as we are of history and of the necessity for the nation to address it, independence was a watershed moment to heal the wounds of the past.’
What the Supreme Court may not have comprehended was that independence healed the wounds caused by the British. But the scars inflicted on our culture by years of Islamic invasions will not heal until justice is served. Thus, the Places of Worship Act must be repealed by parliament or struck down by our courts backed by people’s will and determination.
Jai Hind!
