Subject – Constitution 2

Topic – Places of worship act & the Constitution

Submitted By- Meera Ramaswamy

2nd BA LLB ‘B’
20225

1
Abstract - This research paper aims to provide a deep insight and

analysis into whether the sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Places of

Worship Act 1991, violates the right to equality guaranteed by

articles 14 & 15 of the Constitution, and furthermore, Whether or

not the abovementioned articles are in violation the secularistic

characteristic of the constitution guaranteed under article 24, 25

& 29 of the Constitution and whether the provisions of this act

offends the right of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs to pray,

profess, practice and prorogate religion, references to recent

incidences as well

Keywords: Secularism, Minority protection, demolished

temples, religious freedom

1.1 Introduction

The Places of worship act has been challenges time and again in

the supreme court on the charge of being unconstitutional and

violative of the right to equality and the freedom to practice one’s

religion. The sections in question, state the following –

 Section 3: This section of the Act bars the conversion,

in full or part, of a place of worship of any religious

denomination into a place of worship of a different

2
 religious denomination or even a different segment of

the same religious denomination.

 Section 4(1): It declares that the religious character of

a place of worship “shall continue to be the same as

it existed” on 15th August 1947.

 Section 4(2): It says any suit or legal proceeding with

respect to the conversion of the religious character of

any place of worship existing on 15th August, 1947,

pending before any court, shall abate and no fresh

suit or legal proceedings shall be instituted.

o The proviso to this subsection saves

suits, appeals, and legal proceedings that

are pending on the date of

commencement of the Act if they

pertain to the conversion of the religious

character of a place of worship after the

cut-off date.

 Section 5: It stipulates that the Act shall not apply to

the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case, and to any

suit, appeal, or proceeding relating to it.

3
The law states that any place of public worship existing on

our Independence Day, August 15, 1947, will retain its religious

character on that day, regardless of its history. While Section

3 does not provide for the conversion of places of worship, Section

4 prohibits the filing of claims for such conversion

purposes. The intention of the law is therefore clear.

Another challenge arises from the wording of Section 4 of the Act:

Another allegation is that the provision prohibits the right

to a judicial remedy.

An important background of This law contains the charge that

the law discriminates against Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists

as India has a distinguished history of rule and invasion by Muslim

rulers.

1.2 Objectives of the study

 Analysing the constitutional validity of the Places of

Worship Act 1991, with respect to articles 14 & 15 of the

Constitution

4
  Analysing the constitutional validity of the Places of

Worship Act 1991, with respect to articles 24, 25 & 29 of

the Constitution

 Investigating recent developments and cases, that may

assist us to understand the connection between the act and

the constitutional provisions

1.3 Methodology

A qualitative research method was used for the study, with the help

of various international and trans-national opinion pieces and

editorials, furthermore many dissertations and intellectual think

pieces have been incorporated into this analysis. Resources such as

World Wide Web and articles published therein will also be made

use of.

2.1 the Places of Worship Act 1991, with respect to articles 14

& 15 of the Constitution

Section three of the Act criminalises ‘conversion’ of an area of

worship for one faith or sect into another.

Section four proclaims that the person of an area of worship can

be decided because it become on August fifteenth 1947.

It additionally bars Courts from figuring out whether or

5
not any region of worship has been transformed after

August fifteenth 1947. Section five of the Act excludes its utility to

the site recognised as ‘Ram Janma Bhumi’ or ‘Babri Masjid’. The

petition claims that the choice of date negatively affects Hindus,

Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists. From 1192 the Muslims and British

ruled India and destroyed temples. Freezing the date in 1947

will not allow these congregations to reestablish their places of

worship. This violates Articles 14 and 15, which

guarantee equality, and Article 21, the right to life.

2.2 the Places of Worship Act 1991, with respect to articles 24,

25 & 29 of the Constitution

This violates the right to religious freedom under Articles 25, 26

and 29.

The destroyed temples remain under personal law. Hindu laws

state that deities are "eternal" and do not lose land because idols

are destroyed. Islamic law requires a waqf to purchase a

mosque. The destruction of temples does not create a waqf and is

not a valid mosque in Islamic law.

Therefore, the destroyed temples are still temples in the sense of

the law

6
The Places of Worship Act 1991 is invalid and

unconstitutional on many grounds, as it violates the right of

Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs to pray, profess, practice

and practice their religion (Article 25). it said in the petitions.

The law violates the rights of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs

to administer, maintain and administer places of worship

and sanctuaries (Article 26), the allegations added.

“The law deprives Hindus, Jain Buddhists and Sikhs of

possession/acquisition of

religious properties belonging to deities (misappropriated by other

communities). It also removes the right to judicial

remedy for Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs to recover their

places of worship and pilgrimage and property belonging

to the deity”,

The law further exempts Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs from

reclaiming their cultural heritage-related places of worship and

pilgrimage (Article 29) and also restricts Hindus,

Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs from restoring property in places of

worship Pilgrims, but allow Muslims to make a claim under

Section 107 of the Waqf Law

"The law legalizes the barbaric acts of the invaders. It goes

against Hindu jurisprudence that "Temple property is never lost

7
even if enjoyed by strangers for years, and even the king cannot

take away the property, since the deity is the incarnation of God

and a juridical person, representing "infinitely that “. timeless' and

cannot be constrained by the shackles of time”,

The central government created an arbitrary and irrational

retrospective deadline by enacting the controversial provision

(Places of Worship Act of 1991) in 1991, declaring the sign of

places of worship and pilgrimage will be as on August 15, 1947,

and no suit or proceeding in court will be filed in dispute

against the invasion by fundamentalist barbarian invaders and such

proceeding is suspended

it legalises ‘the ancient historical and Puranic places of worship

and pilgrimage’, lawlessly occupied by foreign invaders.

2.3 recent developments and cases

The most common case, with respect to the places of worship act,

is the Ayodhya case. But however, recent developments show

otherwise, In the most recent plea filed by 5 Hindu women in

Varanasi seeking the right to pray in the Gyanvapi mosque

premises. The women have made the claim that an image of the

8
deity Shringar Gauri exists in the mosque premises, and have

sought permission to enter and offer daily prayers there.

There was a challenge made by the Anjuman Intezamia

Committee, which argued that the plea filed by the Hindu women

is not maintainable as it violates the Places of Worship act of 1991,

this petition however has been dismissed by the Varanasi court and

the Anjuman Intezamia Committee have decided to appeal to the

high court as well in this matter

3.1 Conclusion

The Act bars Hindus from seeking justice and reclaiming their non

secular and cultural heritage. putting it down won't at

once offer them any relief, however can enable them to fight for

his or her rights that are denied until now

Many supporters of the act are upset that the Supreme Court is

administering justice at the expense of truth, the fact that M.

Siddiq bench considered the 1991 law relevant to protecting

the state from other religious structures as they existed at the time

of independence and has drawn a line that

cannot easily be crossed. To dismiss the court's comments on the

Places of Worship Act as a mere obituary, as the BJP suggests, is

9
to attack the root of the ruling. If the Supreme Court of

raises this question again, it will undermine an essential part of its

Ayodhya verdict.

However, currently the Places of worship act derives its validity

from existing as a law, within the territory of India, therefore, at

present, all its provisions are applicable. My personal opinion on

the matter is that, the places of Worship act 1991 is definitely

exclusive and perhaps even discriminatory in nature, but we must

consider it as a necessary evil, because if we start reclaiming the

destroyed places of worship, that would lead to more chaos and

conflict.

10