For decades, communal conflicts over places of worship have persisted, ranging from the Ram
Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, to clashes involving the Shahi
Jama Masjid in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh. Despite legislation aimed at resolving such disputes and
fostering harmony, the temple-mosque controversies continue. The Places of Worship (Special
Provisions) Act, 1991, enacted by the Congress government under Prime Minister P.V.
Narasimha Rao, just a year before the demolition of the Babri Masjid, remains a focal point. The
act has recently come into prominence due to disputes surrounding the Krishna Temple in
Mathura, the Kashi Vishwanath- Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi, and the Shahi Jama Masjid in
Sambhal.
Throughout history, Hindu temples have often been targets of desecration and destruction,
particularly during periods of invasions and political upheavals in the Indian subcontinent. These
acts were not only attempts to assert dominance but also aimed at dismantling the cultural and
spiritual foundations of Hindu society. The desecration of temples disrupted religious practices,
damaged invaluable artistic and architectural heritage, and caused immense emotional and
spiritual distress to devotees. Many sacred idols and scriptures were lost or defaced, severing
connections to centuries-old traditions. The exact number of temples desecrated throughout
history is difficult to determine due to the lack of comprehensive records and the varied contexts
in which these acts occurred. However, historical accounts, inscriptions, and colonial-era surveys
suggest that thousands of Hindu temples were desecrated or destroyed, particularly during
periods of mughal invasions. Prominent examples include temple desecration during the
invasions by Mahmud of Ghazni (e.g., the destruction of the Somnath temple), Babur, the
founder of the Mughal Empire, is believed to have ordered the destruction of temples during his
campaigns, including the controversial case of the Ram Janmabhoomi temple in Ayodhya.
Aurangzeb, perhaps the most noted for temple destruction, issued orders to demolish prominent
temples such as the Kashi Vishwanath Temple in Varanasi, the Kesava Deo Temple in Mathura,
and several others across the empire. Jahangir and Shah Jahan also sanctioned temple
desecrations during their reigns, although they varied in intensity and intent compared to
Aurangzeb. Scholars estimate the number to be in the thousands, but exact figures are debated
and often influenced by differing historical interpretations and perspectives.
After independence, to address increasing communal tensions related to the conversion of places
of worship, the government enacted the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The
legislation aimed to prevent the alteration of any place of worship and to preserve their religious
character as it existed on August 15, 1947. The term “places of worship” includes temples,
mosques, gurudwaras, churches, and other religious sites. Section 3 of the Act prohibits the
conversion of a place of worship belonging to one religious denomination into that of another or
even into a different sect within the same denomination. It does not, however, account for the
thousands of conversions that occurred before the cutoff date. Section 4 establishes August 15,
1947, as the reference date for determining the religious character of such places, though the
rationale for choosing this specific date remains unclear. Any pending suits, appeals, or
proceedings related to the conversion of places of worship as of that date are required to abate,
and no new proceedings of a similar nature can be initiated. Notably, the Act excludes the Ram
Janmabhoomi- Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya and provides for a few other exceptions.
Due to ambiguity in the Act numerous cases has being filed in courts across the country to
determine the religious character of various places of worship. The landmark judgment in the
Ram Janmabhoomi- Babri Masjid case set a precedent by allowing the restoration of deities to
their original place of worship. Additionally, former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud’s
oral observation during the hearing of the Gyanvapi Mosque case in May 2022, stating that
“ascertaining the religious character of a place of worship is not barred under the said Act,” has
reinforced the divine aspirations of the people. Similarly, the district court allowed a survey of
the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, with mutual consent from the mosque
committee. However, despite the agreement, the survey triggered communal clashes,
highlighting the sensitive nature of such disputes.
All these incidents directly question the dormant existence of the act. Futhermore, there are writ
petitions pending in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of The Places of
Worship (Special Provision) Act, 1991 on the grounds of act being arbitrary, unreasonable and
infringes the fundamental rights to practice religion. The day set up by the act to determine the
religious character of the places of worship is also one of the grounds of such petitions. Critics of
the Places of Worship Act argue that it undermines judicial review, a fundamental constitutional
principle, and imposes an arbitrary retrospective cutoff date of August 15, 1947, which ignores
historical injustices. They claim the Act infringes on the religious rights of Hindus, Jains,
Buddhists, and Sikhs by restricting their ability to reclaim and restore places of worship, thereby
limiting their freedom of religion.
The Places of Worship (Special Provision) Act, 1991 intended to preserve communal harmony
and protect the status of religious sites, has proven ineffective in addressing the complexities of
prevailing disputes and societal sentiments. The ongoing controversies and legal battles highlight
the limitations and ambiguities within the Act, undermining its purpose. To foster lasting peace
and mutual respect, there is a pressing need for either a new law or amendments to the existing
legislation. Such reforms should aim to address historical grievances, ensure clarity, and balance
the preservation of communal harmony with the protection of all religious sentiments. The
determination of religious character of the places of worship must be left to the judicial authority