ALL INDIA’S POLITICAL PARTIES MEET (AIPPM)

Background Guide

Letter from executive board

Dear Delegates,
With much honour and delight, the Executive Board Members of All India Political Parties Meet
(hereafter referred as AIPPM), present you with the Background Guide for your committee of
Global Unity Summit. With the agenda being:
“Discussion on Religious Freedom of India with special emphasis on Places of Worship Act
1991”

The AIPPM undoubtedly is quite a resourceful and heated committee amongst the other
committees of the conference(s). Regardless, we need to keep in mind the actual reason as to
why we are here in the first place; to learn. With an agenda like this, debates can run off in any
direction. But it is our belief that participation in such a committee with such a topic shall help
you give an equally worthy platform to expand your skills of research, negotiation and debating.
Wasting time by beating around the bush with surface knowledge wouldn’t help the cause and
just mislead the committee into a whole new direction. Hence, proper research along with
perfect understanding of the situation at hand is something that we’ll be looking forward to
from you all.
Model UN has always been about the learning experience for us. When it comes to speaking and
improving your vocal skills, participation becomes the most prominent part. In the end
everything comes down to how the participation of the delegates in the committee is. Without
participation, there’s no debate and if there is no debate, then what are we even doing in an
AIPPM with such an agenda? But on the other hand, we need to make sure that we have a
healthy debate which allows the committee to actually understand what is going on. Creating a
ruckus in the name of debate is not appreciated by anyone; not by the delegates, and definitely
not by the Executive Board.

Looking forward to three days of good debate, Regards,

Abhinav Agarwal Yatrick SarmahJananjay Deb
(Scribe) (Speaker) (Deputy Speaker)

Places Of Worship Act 1991

The Places of Worship Act was enacted to freeze the status of religious places of worship and
prohibits the conversion of any place of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947, and ensures
the maintenance of their religious character.
The section 3 of the act quotes “Bar of conversion of places of worship. No person shall convert
any place of worship of any religious denomination or any section thereof into a place of
worship of a different section of the same religious denomination or of a different religious
denomination or any section thereof.”
It quotes under the sub clause of section 4(1), “It is hereby declared that the religious character
of a place of worship existing on the 15th day of August, 1947 shall continue to be the same as it
Page 1 The Place of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 existed on that day.”
Section 4(2) of the Act further states that "any suit, appeal or other proceeding with respect to
the conversion of the religious character of any place of worship, existing on the 15th day of
August, 1947, is pending before any court, tribunal or other authority, the same shall abate, and
no suit, appeal or other proceeding with respect to any such matter shall lie on or after such
commencement in any court, tribunal or other authority".
Under the section (5) there were a few exceptions made which included,
The Act does not apply to ancient and historical monuments, archaeological sites, and
remains covered by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act,
1958.
It also excludes cases that have already been settled or resolved and disputes that have
been resolved by mutual agreement or conversions that occurred before the Act came into
effect.
The Act does not extend to the specific place of worship known as Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri
Masjid in Ayodhya, including any legal proceedings associated with it.

The punishment prescribed for the contravention of provisions under the Act is imprisonment
up to the extent of 3 years and shall also be liable to fine. Notwithstanding anything in Section
116 of the Indian Penal Code, anybody who aids and abets the commission of, or is a party to a
criminal conspiracy to commit an offence shall be punished.

History of PWA, 1991

On July 12, 1991, Zainal Abedin, a member of Parliament for the city of Jangipur in the State of
West Bengal, introduced a resolution to the Lok Sabha titled “Steps for Maintaining Status Quo
of Religious Shrines and Places of Worship” as they stood on August 15, 1947, before the Places
of Worship Act was tabled in the Indian Parliament by the Union Government. The purpose of
the resolution was to encourage the government to find a peaceful solution to the Ayodhya
conflict and to pass legislation to protect all religious places of worship. On the same day that
S.B. Chavan, the then-Union Minister of home affairs, brought a government bill along identical
lines before the Lok Sabha and gained the assent of the majority on September 10, 1991, Abedin
withdrew his resolution. On September 12, 1991, it was approved by the Rajya Sabha, and on
September 18, 1991, it was signed into law by India’s President R. Venkataraman.
In 1991, at the height of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, the Parliament passed and the
President signed into law the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act. Congress Prime
Minister P V Narasimha Rao signed the Act into law while the Babri Masjid stood.
The BJP’S STAND:
The main opposition in 1991, the BJP, opposed the Bill. Then Member of parliament Uma Bharti
said “maintenance of status quo as in 1947 in respect of religious places is like closing eyes
similar to that of pigeons against advancement of cats. This…will mean preservation of tensions
for the coming generations”. During the movement for the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, the VHP-
BJP often spoke of “liberating” the temples at Varanasi and Mathura as well. A popular slogan of
the time was, “Ayodhya toh bas jhaanki hai, Kashi Mathura baaki hai (Ayodhya is just a preview,
Kashi and Mathura are yet to come).” In this regard, it’s worth noting that a petition was filed by
a lawyer last week in a local Mathura court seeking videography of the Shahi Idgah Masjid
adjacent to Krishnajanmabhoomi. The application seeks an advocate commissioner for
assessment of the site “on the lines of (the) Gyanvapi mosque”, to determine “existence of
Hindu artefacts and ancient religious inscriptions on the mosque premises”.

Importance of the Act

The importance of the Act was reiterated in the five-judge Constitution Bench judgment on the
Ayodhya title suit in 2019. It said that the “Places of Worship Act 1991 was a legislative
instrument designed to protect the secular features of the Indian polity, which is one of the
basic features of the Constitution”. It held that the “court cannot entertain claims that stem
from the actions of Mughal rulers against Hindu places of worship in a court of law today. For
any person who seeks solace or recourse against the actions of any number of ancient rulers,
the law is not the answer. Our history is replete with actions that have been judged to be morally
incorrect and even today are liable to trigger vociferous ideological debate.” The Act, the court
held, reflected the secular values of our Constitution and strictly prohibited retrogression.
“In providing a guarantee for the preservation of the religious character of places of public
worship as they existed on 15 August 1947 and against the conversion of places of public
worship, Parliament determined that independence from colonial rule furnishes a
constitutional basis for healing the injustices of the past by providing the confidence to every
religious community that their places of worship will be preserved and that their character will
not be altered,” the court said. It added that the “law addresses itself to the state as much as to
every citizen of the nation. Its norms bind those who govern the affairs of the nation at every
level. Those norms implement the Fundamental Duties under Article 51A and are hence positive
mandates to every citizen as well. The state has, by enacting the law, enforced a constitutional
commitment and operationalised its constitutional obligations to uphold the equality of all
religions and secularism, which is a basic structure of the Constitution.”
While awarding the disputed site at Ayodhya to the child deity Ram Lalla, the Supreme Court
stated that similar such cases could not be entertained with respect to other sites in view of the
1991 Act. In 1991 itself, a group of priests petitioned a court seeking demolition of the Gyanvapi
mosque in Varanasi and transfer of the land to the Hindu community. In 1998, the Mosque
Management Committee filed an application averring that a dispute involving religious sites
could not be adjudicated as it was barred by law. The lower court dismissed the application.
The matter went to the High Court, which stayed the proceedings. In 2019, within a month of
the announcement of the Ayodhya verdict, a fresh suit was filed by an advocate seeking a survey
of the Gyanvapi mosque by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). The High Court placed an
interim stay on the ASI survey, which the lower court had allowed. Despite the stay, the Varanasi
court directed the ASI to survey the mosque compound.

Religious clashes in history of India

Gyanvapi Case
The Gyanvapi Mosque has been at the centre of debates, with some believing it was built on the
remains of the Kashi Vishwanath temple. Various petitions in different courts, including the
Supreme Court, Allahabad High Court, and Varanasi district court, have addressed different
angles of this dispute.
The legal tussle dates back to a 1991 petition filed in Varanasi, seeking the restoration of
Gyanvapi land to the Kashi Vishwanath temple. The claim was that the mosque was constructed
under the orders of Aurangzeb, who allegedly tore down a part of the temple in the 16th
century.
In 2019, lawyer Vijay Shankar Rastogi filed a petition after the Supreme Court's Babri Masjid-
Ram Janmabhoomi dispute verdict. The court directed the ASI to conduct a scientific survey,
sparking a series of legal actions and reactions. The case saw various court interventions,
including stays, extensions, and challenges to different orders. The Allahabad High Court, in
2021, put a halt to proceedings in the Varanasi court, emphasizing the Places of Worship Act,
1991, preventing changes in the religious character of a place of worship as of August 15, 1947.
Ayodhya Case
The decision in the Ram Janmabhoomi temple case, M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, was issued
by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on November 9, 2019. This ruling gives the
Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, unqualified support. A law that “prohibits
conversion of any place of worship and provides for the maintenance of the religious character
of any place of worship as it existed on the fifteenth day of August, 1947, and for matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto” is described in the Act’s Preamble. Ram
Janmabhumi-Babri Masjid in Ayodhya is specifically exempted from the Act under Section 5.
The Court put it more succinctly and asserted that “Historical wrongs cannot be repaired by the
people taking the law into their own hands”. Parliament has ordered that “the wrongs of the
past shall not be utilised as instruments to oppress the present and the future” with regards to
protecting the integrity of public houses of worship.
Neither the validity of the 1991 Act nor a review of it came up during the Supreme Court bench’s
hearing of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit. While disagreeing with a portion of
the Allahabad High Court’s judgements, the Court nonetheless made clear comments in favour
of the Act. The Constitution Bench cited this law in its 2019 Ayodhya ruling, saying that it
embraces the secular values of the Constitution and prohibits retrogression. As such, the law is
a piece of legislation enacted to protect a crucial tenet of India’s Constitution—its secular
character in politics.

Petitions over the PWA 1991

The Places of Worship Act, 1991, aims to maintain the religious character of places of worship as
they existed on August 15, 1947. But there are increasing petitions against mosques, claiming
they were built on ancient temples. Examples include petitions against mosques in Kashi and
Mathura. The Supreme Court has allowed some petitions to be considered, challenging the
Act’s intent. A petitioner suggested changing the Act’s cutoff date from 1947 to 1206,
questioning the Act’s scope. Petitioners have argued that the Act infringes upon Article 25 of
the Constitution, which guarantees the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion.
By freezing the status of places of worship as they were in 1947 and prohibiting any change,
critics claim the Act restricts the ability of communities to reclaim and practice their religion in
historical places of worship that were converted or altered. Challenges have also been made on
the grounds of Article 14, which ensures equality before the law and equal protection of the
laws. Critics argue that by exempting the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute, the Act
creates an arbitrary distinction and denies similar recourse to other religious communities
seeking to rectify historical grievances. Legal petitions have been filed arguing that the Act
denies communities the opportunity to seek redress for historical wrongs, thereby violating
principles of justice and fairness. Petitioners claim that the Act permanently bars them from
litigating their claims over places of worship that they assert were taken from them unjustly.

Recent controversies
In August 2023, Gynavapi mosque’s managers, had argued in the apex court that the demand
for a “scientific investigation” by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) of the mosque
premises was merely “salami tactics” and would defeat the spirit of the 1991 Act. But a Bench
headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud had allowed the ASI survey using “non-
invasive technology”. The Chief Justice had even orally remarked to the mosque committee
during the hearings that what seemed frivolous to them may be faith to the Hindus. The survey
has now reported that a grand temple pre-existed the Gyanvapi mosque.
The August 2023 judgment of the apex court did not directly deal with the mosque
committee’s two questions — “what is the point of ordering this ASI survey and going into the
history of what may have happened 500 years ago” and “is the survey itself not a violation of
the statement of objects of the Places of Worship Act”.
The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has disclosed findings from its extensive survey at the
Gyanvapi Masjid site in Varanasi. The survey, conducted in compliance with a court order, brings
to light the existence of a Hindu temple predating the 17th-century construction of the
mosque.
ASI’s Surveys Key Highlights
Carried out by ASI under the Varanasi district court's order, later affirmed by Allahabad High
Court and the Supreme Court, the survey spanned 2150.5 sqm. This included a scientific
investigation of the area surrounding the existing structure, excluding the wuzu pond area
sealed by the Supreme Court.
The survey identified several remnants affirming the existence of a vast Hindu temple. Notable
discoveries include the central chamber, main entrance, western chamber, pillars, pilasters,
inscriptions, and sculptural remains.
During the survey, 34 inscriptions in Devanagari, Grantha, Telugu, and Kannada scripts were
recorded. These inscriptions, reused in the existing structure, highlighted the destruction of
earlier Hindu temples. The stone inscription recording the mosque's construction in 1676-77
CE, during Aurangzeb's reign, was discovered during the recent survey.
The ASI's survey has unveiled a layered history at the Gyanvapi Masjid site, emphasizing the
coexistence of Hindu and Islamic heritage over the centuries. These revelations hold
implications for ongoing legal proceedings and discussions surrounding the site's historical
significance.
Some Important Statements
Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Adityanath publicly endorsed the Hindu claims over the Varanasi
and Mathura sites. Uttar Pradesh is ruled by Modi’s Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party
(BJP).
Referring to the January 31 order, Adityanath said in the state assembly: “When people saw the
festivities in Ayodhya [on January 22], Nandi baba also wondered why he should wait. The
barricades were removed overnight. And why should Lord Krishna relent?”
Speaking at an event in Lucknow on February 3, Keshav Prasad Maurya, Uttar Pradesh deputy
chief minister, claimed that till 1993, the basement of the mosque, “Vyas ji ka tehkhana” was
open and people would offer prayers there.
“I also had the good fortune of doing ‘darshan’ there. But in 1993 it was stopped,” Maurya said at
the “Shri Ram Darbar”, an event organised by a newly-launched right-wing platform Shri Guru
Vasishtha Nyas.
Maurya, who described the puja inside the basement of the mosque as a “historic” event, also
said that if the BJP government, of which he was a part, wanted it could have opened the
basement of the mosque for Hindu prayers but it chose to not intervene.

Not just Maurya, on January 31, hours after the district court order, former union minister Uma
Bharti – one of the most recognisable women of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement of the early
1990s – also claimed that she had worshipped the “idols inscribed” on the walls of the Gyanvapi
Masjid.

Another Recent Controversy:

Religious Freedom in India?
Citizenship Amendment Act
Sporadic protests have broken out across the country after the Prime Minister Narendra Modi -
led government implemented the Citizenship Amendment Act on March 11. The law, which has
faced criticism for alleged discrimination against Muslims, was put into effect just days before
the announcement of the Lok Sabha Elections 2024.
Protests were reported in the eastern state of Assam and the southern state of Tamil Nadu late
on March 11, with no reported damage or clashes with security forces. In Chennai, the capital of
Tamil Nadu, protesters conducted a candlelight march on March 11, expressing their opposition
to the law. In Assam, protesters burned copies of the law and chanted slogans, prompting local
opposition parties to call for a state-wide strike on March 12.
Critics argue that the law, coupled with a proposed national register of citizens, could lead to
discrimination against India's 200 million Muslims, the world's third-largest Muslim population.
Rights groups and Muslim organizations in particular expressed concerns given that India is
home to the world's third-largest Muslim population. They fear that the proposed National
Registration of Citizens (NRC) coupled with the CAA could lead to the removal of citizenship for
Muslims without proper documentation in border states.
From the political angle, opposition parties, including the Congress party, claim that the
government's announcement is politically motivated, coinciding with the upcoming elections.
However, the government has denied accusations of being anti-Muslim and said the law is
aimed at helping minorities facing persecution in Muslim-majority nations. It added that the law
is intended to grant citizenship, not revoke it, and dismisses the protests as politically motivated
and based on misconceptions.

Home Minister Amit Shah has defended the CAA, calling it a “special act” designed to protect
persecuted minorities from three countries and saying it has nothing to do with Indian Muslims.
“Indian Muslims need not be afraid because of the CAA. It has no provision to take away the
citizenship rights of any Indian,” Shah said.
The United States has said it is “concerned” about the notification of the CAA.
“We are closely monitoring how this act will be implemented. Respect for religious freedom and
equal treatment under the law for all communities are fundamental democratic principles,”
State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller told reporters during a daily briefing on 14th
March.

End Note: This guide is not meant to be exhaustive or authoritative. You are encouraged to go
beyond the contents of this guide and even question the content mentioned here.