India’s Places of Worship Act: Supreme Court Review and Ongoing Debates

India’s highest judicial body is currently reviewing multiple petitions that challenge a decades-old statute. This law aims to uphold the character and identity of religious sites as they existed at the time of the nation’s independence in 1947. Enacted in 1991, the legislation prohibits the conversion or alteration of the character of any place of worship and prevents courts from addressing disputes regarding its status, with the specific exclusion of the Babri Masjid case. The Babri Masjid, a mosque from the 16th century, was central to a prolonged conflict that culminated in its destruction by a Hindu mob in 1992. A court ruling in 2019 allocated the site to Hindus for the construction of a temple, thereby reigniting discussions about India’s religious and secular divisions. The current petitions, including one submitted by a member of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), contend that the 1991 law infringes upon religious freedom and constitutional secularism. This hearing occurs as Hindu groups have initiated numerous legal actions to dispute the status of various mosques, asserting they were built over demolished Hindu temples. Conversely, many, including opposition political figures and Muslim organizations, have advocated for the law, stating its vital role in safeguarding the places of worship for religious minorities in a Hindu-majority India. These supporters also express skepticism regarding the historical evidence presented by the petitioners to substantiate their claims. They caution that invalidating or weakening the law could lead to a surge of comparable legal challenges and exacerbate religious tensions, particularly between Hindu and Muslim communities. On Thursday, the Supreme Court issued an order prohibiting lower courts from registering new cases challenging the ownership of places of worship or from commissioning surveys to ascertain their character and identity, pending further directives. The court is scheduled to revisit this matter in February. The law mandates that the religious character of any place of worship—including temples, mosques, churches, and gurdwaras—must be preserved as it stood on 15 August 1947, the date of India’s independence. The Place of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, was introduced by the then-governing Congress party at a time when a movement, spearheaded by members of the Hindu nationalist BJP, to construct a temple at the Babri Masjid site in the northern town of Ayodhya was gaining momentum. This intense campaign incited riots across various regions of the nation and, according to some estimates, resulted in hundreds of fatalities. This violence served as a stark recollection of the religious conflict India experienced during the 1947 partition. During the bill’s introduction in parliament, then-Home Minister SB Chavan voiced concern over “an alarming rise of intolerance propagated by certain sections for their narrow vested interests.” He stated that these factions were engaging in “forcible conversion” of religious sites in an effort to instigate fresh conflicts. The BJP, which was then in opposition, vehemently opposed the proposed legislation, leading some of its lawmakers to stage a walkout from parliament. A Member of Parliament from the party asserted his belief that the bill was introduced to placate minorities and would merely widen the divide between Hindus and Muslims. With the exception of archaeological sites, irrespective of their religious nature, the sole other exemption to this law was the Babri Masjid, due to a legal challenge against its structure predating India’s independence. Nevertheless, Hindu mobs razed the mosque within months of the law’s implementation. In 2019, when granting the contested land to Hindu organizations, India’s Supreme Court declared the mosque’s demolition to be an unlawful act. The Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision on this law holds significant importance for the future of numerous religious edifices, particularly those belonging to Muslims, which are currently disputed by Hindu factions. Among these are the Gyanvapi and Shahi Eidgah, two contested mosques situated in the sacred cities of Varanasi and Mathura. Critics additionally highlight that the historical character of these locations will complicate the definitive resolution of conflicting claims, thereby creating potential for intense inter-religious disputes and unrest. Although the ongoing hearing is under close scrutiny, the law frequently garners attention with every new development in cases challenging mosques. For instance, two weeks prior, a court in Rajasthan issued official notices to the government after accepting a petition alleging that the esteemed Ajmer Sharif dargah—a 13th-century Sufi shrine drawing thousands of daily visitors—was built atop a Hindu temple. Furthermore, last month, four individuals died in Sambhal town, Uttar Pradesh state, when violence erupted during a court-mandated survey of a 16th-century mosque. Muslim organizations have challenged this survey in the Supreme Court. Prior instances of tension have arisen concerning other court-ordered surveys, notably involving the Gyanvapi mosque. Hindu groups asserted that the 17th-century mosque was constructed by Mughal emperor Aurangzeb upon the partial remains of the Kashi Vishwanath temple. Muslim organizations objected to the survey mandated by a local court, arguing it contravened the 1991 law. However, in 2022, a Supreme Court bench led by then Chief Justice DY Chandrachud permitted the survey to proceed. He further remarked that the 1991 law did not preclude inquiries into the status of a place of worship as it existed on 15 August 1947, provided such inquiries did not aim to change its character. Since then, many have criticized this stance, with former civil servant Harsh Mander stating that it “opened the floodgates for this series of orders by courts that run contrary to the 1991 law.” Mr. Mander articulated, “If you allow the survey of a mosque to determine if a temple lay below it, but then prohibit actions to restore a temple at that site, this is a surefire recipe for fostering resentment, hate and fear that could detonate for years in bitter feuds between people of diverse faiths.” The Supreme Court’s directive issued on Thursday signifies that these surveys and current legal proceedings are temporarily suspended.