The Supreme Court has provided a much-needed corrective by restraining all lower courts from entertaining cases related to religious places covered under the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. This law, enacted to preserve communal harmony, prohibits altering the status of temples, mosques, churches, and gurdwaras as they existed on August 15, 1947, with the sole exception of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute, which has since been resolved. Unfortunately, recent judicial overreach threatened to undo this carefully crafted legislation.
Last year, a Varanasi court allowed a “scientific” survey of the Gyanvapi Mosque, excluding the wazukhana, despite the Act’s clear intent. When the matter reached the Supreme Court, the bench led by then Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud clarified that the Act did not prohibit studies or surveys. This ambiguity emboldened lower courts to entertain frivolous petitions about mosques allegedly built over demolished temples.
The result was chaotic. In Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, a court ordered a survey of a protected Mughal-era mosque without consulting mosque authorities. The survey commenced within hours, sparking unrest that leaft four dead, two of them sole breadwinners. Similarly, a judge in Ajmer ordered a survey to investigate a baseless claim that the iconic Dargah Sharif, a pilgrimage site for millions, stood on a temple. Such orders risked turning the judiciary into a battleground for historical grievances, undermining communal harmony.
The 1991 Act was created to prevent precisely this kind of Pandora’s box. It recognised the futility and danger of reopening disputes about centuries-old religious structures. Even governments led by Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Narendra Modi, known for their nationalist outlook, refrained from reviewing the law. Clearly, the Act has served as a bulwark against potential flashpoints, fostering peace on the religious front for over three decades.
India does not lack religious places. If new ones are needed, they can be built without razing existing structures. At a time when millions struggle for basic necessities—roti, kapda, and makan—stoking religious disputes serves no one except those who thrive on discord. By halting the judicial free-for-all, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed its role as the guardian of the Constitution. Its directive to the Centre and other stakeholders to clarify their positions on the 1991 Act is a welcome step. The apex court must ensure that this landmark legislation continues to shield the nation from destructive, divisive forces. Peace and progress must prevail over historical revisionism.