On 30th November, Congress leaders Alok Sharma and Priya Mishra filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court seeking to halt the execution of court-ordered surveys at religious sites. In the petition, Alok and Priya cited alleged violations of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.
The petition has come at a time when violence erupted during a court-ordered survey of the Jama Masjid in Sambhal, and the Ajmer Trial Court accepted a petition claiming that the Ajmer Sharif Dargah used to be a Shiv Mandir.
Petitioners call for adherence to the Places of Worship Act
In the petition, Congress leaders called for directions by the apex court, ordering the state governments and lower courts to refrain from enforcing survey orders that, according to them, risk disrupting “communal harmony”. The petitioners further sought directions to ensure that all relevant cases are reviewed by the higher courts before any action is taken, citing the provisions of the 1991 Act that mandates the maintenance of the status quo of religious sites as of 15th August 1947.
They further requested a stay on all pending survey orders and sought directions from the Supreme Court to the state governments and union territories to prioritise peace. The petition stated: “To maintain harmony, orders by civil courts should not be executed hastily. Instead, they should be brought before the High Court or the Supreme Court.”
‘Cases stirring communal unrest’, claim Congress leaders
In the petition, Congress leaders Sharma and Mishra cited multiple cases that they claimed led to communal tensions, such as the Ajmer Sharif Dargah, the Sambhal Jama Masjid, Mathura’s Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Masjid, and Varanasi’s Gyanvapi mosque.
The petition was filed through Advocate Narendra Mishra, arguing that the litigations seeking surveys of religious sites are “barred” by the 1991 Act. The petitioners contend that continued legal disputes over historical religious sites risk destabilising the country’s communal fabric.
Exceptions to the Places of Worship Act – Detailed provisions explained
In 1991, the PV Narasimha Rao-led Congress regime passed the Places of Worship Act to protect the religious character of places of worship as they existed in 1947, with the exception of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid issue, which was already in court.
As per this Act, a site of worship’s religious character must remain the same as it was on 15th August 1947. The law also states that nobody shall convert any religious denomination’s holy site into one of a distinct denomination or section. Additionally, the law asserts that every lawsuit, appeal, or other proceedings pertaining to changing the character of a place of worship pending before any court or authority on 15th August 1947 will be terminated as soon as the legislation becomes effective, meaning there cannot be any further legal proceedings. Furthermore, the Act also imposes a positive obligation on the state to maintain the religious character of every place of worship as it existed at the time of independence.
The 1991 Act, while preserving the religious character of structures as they existed on 15th August 1947, includes specific exceptions. These provisions are designed to account for historical, legal, and social realities that necessitate deviations from the general prohibitions of the Act.
One of the most significant exceptions related to places of worship in the Act is for the sites that are classified as ancient and historical monuments or archaeological sites. These sites are governed by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, or other similar laws. Notably, this exemption, provided under the Section 3 of the Act, acknowledges that such monuments, often of national and cultural significance, are not exclusively religious in nature. Furthermore, these sites require separate legal consideration for preservation and study. It ensures that these sites continue to be managed under their specific frameworks that may involve conservation work and research.
Jama Masjid in Sambhal is an ASI-protected site, survey was legal
In the case of the Jama Masjid in Sambhal, it is an Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) protected site. Being an ASI site, legally, a survey can be ordered by a court as directed by the 1991 Act. The same applies to other ASI-protected sites in India that were built after destroying Hindu temples.
Interestingly, in an affidavit, ASI alleged that its officers were not allowed to enter the mosque for inspection and that the Jama Masjid management committee has done several interventions and modifications inside the mosque. It further stated that an ASI team had inspected the disputed mosque once in 1998 and then in June 2024. The Superintending Archaeologist of ASI’s Meerut circle Vinod Singh Rawat submitted that the Sambhal Jama Masjid management committee has carried out various interventions and modifications in the disputed mosque. Moreover, Rawat said that the masjid management committee has restricted the ASI team from carrying out inspection and thus, the ASI is unaware of the present status of the mosque, in addition, the ASI also does not have any information on whether any additions were made to the mosque.
Another key exception in the Act pertains to disputes or legal proceedings concerning the religious character of a place of worship that were resolved before the Act came into force, that is, on 11th July 1991. The Act states that if such cases were settled by the courts, tribunals, or through mutual agreements among the parties involved, they cannot be reopened under the Act. This provision is aimed at maintaining legal finality and avoiding any resurgence of disputes that have already been addressed through established legal provisions.
Here, the case of Krishna Janmabhoomi can be considered. It was stated that the land dispute was settled through an agreement for the site, and the 1991 Act protected the settlement. However, in the petition to the court, it was argued that the agreement was not a legal one, and the court should revisit it by ordering a survey of the site. Furthermore, the petitioners also argued that as the site is ASI-protected, it will be subject to the rules of “The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958” rather than the Places of Worship Act. The case is still pending in court.
The Act further excludes religious structures that were converted before the commencement of the Act. The law recognises conversions that happened by acquiescence, where there was explicit or implied consent to the change. In such cases, the Act bars the matter from being legally challenged again. With these exemptions, the Act ensures that changes made before 1991, whether widely accepted or unchallengeable due to legal constraints, remain unaffected.
Conclusion
The petition by Congress leaders Alok Sharma and Priya Mishra, aiming to stop court-ordered surveys under the Places of Worship Act, 1991, overlooks important exemptions in the Act. For instance, surveys of ASI-protected sites like Sambhal’s Jama Masjid are allowed under the law. Similarly, the Act permits revisiting disputes settled before 1991, like the Krishna Janmabhoomi case. By ignoring these details, the petition raises doubts about the true intentions of the Congress leaders involved.
