A team of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) during a scientific survey at the Gyanvapi mosque complex in Varanasi on August 8, 2023.
| Photo Credit: PTI

When the Supreme Court passed its judgment in the Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi case in 2019, it emphasised the importance of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, observing that the state had through the law carried out its constitutional obligations to uphold secularism and the equality of all religions.

The judgment stressed that Ayodhya was the only exception to the law, which was enacted with the aim of preserving the religious character of places of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947. However, it is widely believed that the Supreme Court itself opened the floodgates for petitions to be filed over other places of worship and monuments claiming that temples originally existed at those sites.

Also Read | Have courts forgotten the Places of Worship Act, 1991? 

In May 2022, while hearing the case pertaining to the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, with the petitioners claiming it was originally a temple, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud observed that while the 1991 law barred changing the character of a place of worship, the “ascertainment of a religious character of a place, as a processual instrument, may not necessarily fall foul” of the Act. A bench led by him also refused to interfere with the order of a civil court in Varanasi to conduct a survey of the mosque.

More such petitions have been filed and entertained by lower courts since the Ayodhya judgment, and surveys have been ordered. These include the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Masjid matter. The case of the Jama Masjid in Sambhal follows a similar pattern of a civil suit being filed in a lower court and the court ordering a survey. More recently, a petition was filed in an Ajmer court claiming that the Ajmer Sharif dargah was originally a Siva temple and seeking a survey of the site.

The Supreme Court has been petitioned to ensure the implementation of the 1991 Act and that such cases are not entertained and surveys conducted. At the same time, petitions have also been filed in the apex court challenging the constitutional validity of the Act.

Jamaat-e-Islami Hind vice president Prof. Mohammad Saleem Engineer said the Sambhal episode and the Ajmer Dargah case were the latest in a series of civil suits filed in lower courts with regard to Muslim places of worship, and that the courts were taking up the cases in clear disregard of the 1991 Act.

Also Read | Petition challenging constitutionality of 1991 Places of Worship Act admitted by Supreme Court

“The law closed the doors for all such claims and surveys. It clearly states that whatever was the situation on August 15, 1947, has to be maintained. The courts are, however, entertaining such petitions. They are working under the pressure of fanatical groups,” Engineer said.

Former Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court Govind Mathur said in the present circumstances, it was especially important that the courts upheld the 1991 Act. “This is a new tactic to use the courts to create a communal atmosphere. Now it is for the courts to check and control such tactics. Suffice to state that the Supreme Court in the Ayodhya matter has found this law to be essential to protect the secular fabric of Indian society. It has also observed that Parliament has mandated in no uncertain terms that history and its wrongs shall not be used as an instrument to oppress the present and the future,” said Mathur.