The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 is a significant piece of legislation in Ithat aims to maintain the religious character of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947, with the notable exception of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site. The Act was enacted during a period of heightened communal tensions of the early 90s, particularly surrounding the Ayodhya dispute, and was intended to promote communal harmony by preventing the alteration of religious sites. With claims being made of buried temples under mosques left, right, and centre, the PoWA has also come under fire for being tilted towards protecting the mosques.
Recently, the Indian National Congress (INC) has filed an intervention application in the Supreme Court, opposing petitions that challenge the Act’s constitutional validity. The Congress argues that the Act is essential for safeguarding secularism in India and reflects the mandate of the Indian populace, as it was enacted with significant support during the 10th Lok Sabha when the Congress and Janata Dal held a majority.
The party contends that the current challenges to the Act are motivated attempts to undermine established principles of secularism and could jeopardise communal harmony. The Supreme Court is now set to hear these petitions, which include arguments from various parties, including those advocating for the Act’s enforcement and those seeking its repeal, highlighting the ongoing debate over the intersection of religion, law, and politics.
Jargon
- Places of Worship Act: A law enacted in 1991 that maintains the religious character of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947, with the exception of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site.
- Congress: A major political party in India, historically associated with the Indian independence movement and currently the principal opposition party in Parliament.
- Plea: A formal request made to a court for a specific legal remedy or action, often in the context of challenging or supporting legislation.
- Secularism: The principle of separating religion from political, social, and educational institutions, ensuring that all religions are treated equally under the law.
- Constitutional validity: The legal standing of a law or act in relation to the Constitution, determining whether it aligns with constitutional principles and rights.
Viewpoints 💭
- The Congress party argues that the Places of Worship Act is crucial for safeguarding secularism and maintaining communal harmony in India.
- The Act is seen as a reflection of the popular mandate and was part of Congress’s 1991 election manifesto, underscoring its commitment to secular principles.
- Congress contends that the Act promotes equality among all religious groups and does not infringe on religious freedom.
- The party emphasises that any changes to the Act could threaten India’s sovereignty and integrity, warning against motivated attempts to undermine secularism.
- Congress highlights its historical role in enacting the law and seeks to defend its legal validity against challenges perceived as malicious.
- The left views the Places of Worship Act as a necessary legal framework to uphold secularism and prevent communal discord, while the right sees it as an impediment to reclaiming historical religious sites.
- Congress emphasises the Act’s role in promoting religious equality and protecting the secular fabric of the nation, whereas the right criticises it for being biased and unconstitutional.
- The left argues that the Act reflects the will of the Indian populace and was enacted with broad support, while the right questions its legitimacy and the exclusion of certain sites like Ayodhya.
- While the left warns that altering the Act could threaten national integrity, the right believes that challenging the Act is essential to address historical grievances and assert Hindu rights.
- The left highlights the Act’s importance in maintaining communal harmony, whereas the right perceives it as a tool that hinders the reclamation of religious heritage and perpetuates historical injustices.
- Critics from the right argue that the Places of Worship Act is biased against Hindus and was enacted to protect mosques built over Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain sites.
- The BJP and other right-wing voices claim the Act is unconstitutional, encroaches on states’ rights, and unfairly excludes the Ayodhya site.
- There is a belief that the Act prevents Hindus from reclaiming their historical religious sites, thus perpetuating historical injustices.
- Right-wing perspectives suggest that the Act’s cut-off date of August 15, 1947, is arbitrary and lacks a logical connection to India’s independence.
- The right argues for the need to challenge the Act to assert Hindu rights and reclaim religious heritage, viewing the Act as a hindrance to these efforts.
Prominent Voices 📣
- Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay (BJP leader and lawyer): Challenges the constitutional validity of the Act, arguing it is discriminatory towards Hindu, Sikh, Jain, and Buddhist communities.
4
5
- Swami Jeetendranand Saraswati (Religious Leader): Opposes the Act, advocating for the restoration of religious sites.
6
- Devkinandan Thakur (Religious Guru): Challenges the Act, emphasising the rights of Hindus.
- Chintam Malviya (Former Member of Parliament): Opposes the Act, stating it discriminates against certain religious groups.
6