Read Time: 08 minutes

A Delhi Court has recently dismissed a civil suit seeking worship rights at the Qutab Minar complex as well as restoration of Hindu and Jain deities temples, which were allegedly demolished by Qutubdin Aibak located in the present Qutub Complex.

Saket Court Civil Judge Neha Sharma, while rejecting the plea noted that there are just exceptions to Articles 25 & 26 of the Constitution and though it is an admitted fact that temples were razed to the ground and a mosque was constructed atop the ruins, no namaz/ prayers are offered onsite and that status quo must be maintained at the protected Monument.

"It is an admitted fact that the suit property is a mosque built over temples and is not being used for any religious purpose, no prayers/namaz is being offered in the suit property. Hence, in my considered opinion, plaintiffs do not have an absolute right to restoration and worship in the suit property as public order which is an exception to Article 25 and 26 requires that status quo be maintained and protected monument be used for no religious purpose."

The Judge stated that though nobody has denied that wrongs were committed in the past, but such wrongs can't be the basis for disturbing the peace of our present and future.

Court rejected the suit while referring to the Judgment of Supreme Court in the Ayodhya Case, "Cognizant as we are of our history and of the need for the nation to confront it, Independence was a watershed moment to heal the wounds of the past. Hence, wrongs cannot be remedied by the people taking the law in their own hands."

It has been alleged in the petition that "In exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Act, the Government of India acquired ownership of entire area of Quwwatul Islam Masjid and administrative control was handed over to ASI. However, on the date of acquisition of the area, nobody was representing the temples and deities and no opportunity was granted to them as required under section 10 of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904 even though property continues to be vested in the deity."

While rejecting the contention of the plaintiffs that section 4(3)(a) of the Places of Worship Act, 1991 excludes an ancient and historical monument or an archaeological site or remains covered by the AMASR Act and hence, the present suit is not barred under the Places of Worship Act, 1991 would the Court stated that in her opinion, doing so would frustrate the purpose of the act itself.

"Section 4 (3)(a) has to be seen in the larger context of the Places of Worship Act. The object of the Act is 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," the Court noted.

She went on to justify the position by stating that once a monument has been declared to be a protected monument and is owned by the Government, then the plaintiffs cannot insist that the place of worship must actually and actively be used for religious services.

"Thus, every endeavour should be made to enforce the objective of the act. The purpose of the Places of Worship Act, 1991 was to maintain the secular character of this nation. Our country had a rich history and has seen challenging times. Nevertheless, history has to be accepted as a whole. Can the good be retained and bad be deleted from our history? Thus, harmonious interpretation of both the statutes is required to give full force to the objective behind the Places of Worship Act, 1991"

The Suit was filed on behalf of Tirthankar Lord Rishabh Dev the Jain Deity, Lord Vishnu the Hindu Deity and Advocates Hari Shankar Jain, Ranjana Agnihotri and Jitender Singh

Case Title: Tirthankar Lord Rishabh Dev & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.