Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

Hailing the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, as a “silver lining,” former Supreme Court judge Justice RF Nariman has called for its strict enforcement, asserting that the primary objective of the Act is to prohibit revisiting historical grievances to alter the religious character of places of worship.

Delivering the inaugural lecture of the Justice AM Ahmadi Foundation on “Secularism and the Indian Constitution,” Justice Nariman described the Act as a critical tool to prevent communal discord and uphold the rule of law. Referring to the Act’s intent, he emphasised that the law was brought in specifically to ensure that the Greek god Janus, with one face looking at the past, does not govern us. “The face looking to the past is a waste. You will not look to the past; you will not try to counter historical wrongs by breaching the rule of law or by asking courts to do the same,” Justice Nariman remarked. He further pointed out that the Act freezes the religious character of all places of worship as of August 15, 1947, and reiterated that “every religious place is frozen” to this date.

Justice Nariman warned against the proliferation of lawsuits challenging the religious character of mosques, dargahs, and other places of worship. “We find today, like hydra heads popping up all over the country, there is suit after suit filed all over the place. Not only concerning mosques but also dargahs,” he said.

Justice Nariman also criticised the Supreme Court’s 2019 Ayodhya verdict for not giving secularism its due, calling it a “great travesty of justice.”  He questioned the court's reliance on ASI findings, questioning the conclusion that the structure beneath the mosque was “probably a temple,” given the discovery of Buddhist and Jain artefacts. He also contested the court's labeling of the inner courtyard as a “disputed” site, attributing the dispute to “egregious attempts to dislodge” the Muslim community against the rule of law.

However, he noted that the judgment’s affirmation of the Places of Worship Act was a positive aspect, ensuring the preservation of India’s secular character. “This very Constitution Bench spends five pages on it and says that in secularism, which is a part of the Basic Structure, you cannot look backwards; you have to look forward,” he noted, urging that these pivotal five pages of the Ayodhya judgment be read in every district and high court to ensure compliance with the law and to dismiss suits seeking to challenge the Act’s provisions. According to him, the only way to address the issue of lawsuits aimed at altering the religious character of mosques, is by applying these five pages of the judgment as it is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court which binds each of these courts. “It will easily cauterize all these hydra heads which are now popping one after the other every day,” he added.

Justice Nariman stressed that the Act’s enforcement is essential to prevent communal tension and uphold the principle of secularism, which he described as a fundamental feature of the Indian Constitution. “All this can lead to communal tension and disharmony, contrary to what is envisaged in both our Constitution and the Places of Worship Act,” he added.