The Supreme Court bans inspections of places of worship.
The Supreme Court has temporarily halted the divisive campaign of searching for temples beneath mosques. On Thursday, while hearing cases related to the 1991 Places of Worship Act, the country’s highest court instructed lower courts that no new petitions against places of worship should be filed, nor any orders issued, until the cases regarding the protection of places of worship are resolved. The court also clarified that such orders would not apply to cases already under trial in the courts. With this significant decision by the Supreme Court, the campaign by fascist forces against mosques has been temporarily curtailed. These forces were persistently attempting to find the remains of temples beneath historic mosques as part of a broader conspiracy. This decision represents a major legal victory, thwarting the efforts of those seeking to spread religious hatred in India. It not only guarantees the protection of mosques but also sends an important message that the judiciary stands firmly against all forms of religious extremism and upholds the constitutional principle of equal protection for all religions.
Recently, a sensitive and heart-wrenching incident in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, has shaken the entire nation. The local court’s swift and unusual urgency in issuing orders for the survey of a 500-year-old Jama Masjid, based on a petition, clearly demonstrated how lower courts are being exploited as tools by malicious elements. During the survey, when local Muslims protested against this illegal act, the police opened fire directly on the demonstrators, resulting in the martyrdom of five young Muslims. This tragedy sparked a wave of grief and anger across the country, with people raising their voices against government injustice and judicial corruption. The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court, which immediately stayed the decision of the Sambhal lower court. This ruling once again raised a critical question: when the Places of Worship Act of 1991 is in place, why are such controversial petitions even admissible in courts? This incident highlights a broader issue of how communal elements are targeting historic mosques to disrupt the nation’s peace, with some courts inadvertently aiding their nefarious goals. However, the recent action by the Supreme Court symbolizes a victory for justice and sends a strong message against these divisive conspiracies.
The series of mosque surveys began two years ago when an oral ruling by a former Chief Justice gave a new dimension to the Gyanvapi Mosque case. While hearing a petition to halt the survey of the historic Gyanvapi Mosque in Banaras, the Chief Justice remarked that the Places of Worship Act does not hinder determining the original character of a place of worship. This oral observation, though not a formal judgment, became a tool for malicious elements and anti-Muslim forces. Using this statement as a foundation, communal groups began searching for temples beneath historic mosques, and lower courts started issuing survey orders, citing the oral observation as precedent. It seemed as if these courts were waiting for just such an opportunity. The situation escalated to the point where the protection of mosques became a pressing issue across the country, threatening the fabric of religious harmony. Although Justice Chandrachud recently clarified that his statement was merely part of a judicial discussion and not a final decision, this clarification came too late. By then, the country was already engulfed in tension and unrest. This situation underscores how irresponsible comments can be exploited to divide society, while the hasty actions of lower courts further exacerbated the crisis. There is now an urgent need to uphold the rule of law and enforce the Places of Worship Act to prevent such disputes in the future and safeguard communal harmony.
in reality, the most effective tool to stop the search for temples beneath mosques is the Places of Worship Act. This law is essential not only for preserving the country's religious harmony but also for blocking the conspiracies of malicious elements. However, it is unfortunate that this very law, a robust shield against communalism, has been challenged in the Supreme Court by a leader of the ruling BJP. Taking the matter seriously, Muslim and secular parties appealed to the Supreme Court to be heard during the proceedings on petitions challenging the Places of Worship Act. The Supreme Court accepted this appeal, marking a significant step toward controlling the dangerous campaign targeting the country’s historic places of worship. Several organizations and parties, including Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind, the Indian Union Muslim League, Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Kumar Jha from the Rashtriya Janata Dal, and the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) led by Sharad Pawar, have been at the forefront of raising their voices against this campaign. These groups have emphasized that the law is not just for the protection of Muslims but is indispensable for safeguarding the places of worship of all religions.
It is noteworthy that currently, 18 cases against 10 historic mosques are under trial in various courts across the country. These include Banaras's Gyanvapi Mosque, Mathura's Shahi Eidgah, Delhi's Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque, Madhya Pradesh's Kamal Maula Mosque, Sambhal's Shahi Jama Masjid, Jaunpur's Atala Mosque, Badaun's Shamsi Jama Masjid, Lucknow's Teele Wali Mosque, Mangalore's Malali Jama Masjid, and the internationally renowned shrine of Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti in Ajmer. These cases and the conspiracies driving them are clear evidence that malicious elements aim to fuel religious hatred and divide society. In such circumstances, it is imperative not only to uphold the Places of Worship Act but also to ensure its strict enforcement to maintain an atmosphere of religious harmony and unity in the country.
In a significant and explicit ruling, the Supreme Court has directed courts not to issue interim or final judgments or orders for surveys in cases related to disputes over places of worship. Additionally, the court stated that no new claims would be accepted until further notice, marking a major step toward protecting places of worship. A bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna clarified that the Supreme Court is currently reviewing the constitutional validity and scope of the 1991 Places of Worship Act. Therefore, other courts should refrain from issuing any orders in such matters. The court has also sought a response from the central government, instructing other parties to present their positions within four weeks of the central government’s submission. The Supreme Court has also accepted the petitions of Muslim parties and other intervenors, assuring that they will be granted a fair hearing. This development raises hope for a positive step toward resolving disputes over places of worship within a constitutional and legal framework.
It is noteworthy that the Places of Worship Act was first challenged in the Supreme Court in 2020 by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay. This highlights the presence of elements within the ruling party itself who are attempting to weaken this law. Surprisingly, despite repeated notices issued by the Supreme Court to the central government, no response has been filed by the government so far. This situation reflects that efforts to undermine the Places of Worship Act could not only deteriorate communal harmony but also negatively impact social cohesion. With the Supreme Court's clear stance, there is hope for concrete steps to be taken to maintain and restore religious harmony in the country.
The Places of Worship Act was enacted in 1991 by the Narasimha Rao government when the Babri Masjid dispute was at its peak. The primary purpose of introducing this law was to prevent such grave disputes in the future that could endanger communal harmony and social unity in the country. The Act explicitly stipulates that the status of all places of worship as it stood on August 15, 1947, the time of India’s independence, shall be maintained. A mosque will remain a mosque, and a temple will remain a temple, with no alterations to their structure or status permitted. This law became a milestone in reducing communal tensions and fostering religious harmony. The Ayodhya dispute inflicted deep wounds on the nation, severely damaging Hindu-Muslim unity and creating walls of hatred and division within society. In such a charged environment, the Places of Worship Act was an urgent necessity to protect future generations from the specter of religious conflicts. This law guarantees that no community can take any action against the places of worship of another, ensuring equal respect for all religions. Its implementation symbolized a commitment to preserving the nation’s religious tolerance and avoiding a repetition of past grievances.
This is a very important aspect that the Babri Masjid was excluded from the Places of Worship Act of 1991 because the case was still pending at that time. However, the Supreme Court's 2019 decision, which awarded the land of the Babri Masjid to the followers of the Ram Mandir, raised several undeniable points. The first and most significant point was that the Supreme Court itself acknowledged that the Babri Masjid was not built by demolishing a temple. Secondly, the court declared the demolition of the mosque a criminal act. Thirdly, the Supreme Court, while delivering its verdict, recognized the importance of the 1991 Places of Worship Act, stating that this law is crucial to prevent further communal conflicts in the country in the future. However, despite acknowledging all these facts, the court delivered a decision that seemed more aimed at appeasing majority sentiments rather than fulfilling the demands of justice. This was the moment when the poisonous idea deeply penetrated the minds of communal forces that in the country, majority desires would take precedence over the Constitution and the law.
This poison has now infiltrated certain parts of the judiciary as well, as evidenced by recent controversial decisions by the Allahabad High Court. These decisions have further emboldened communal forces and posed serious threats to religious harmony in the country. This situation is not only a threat to the supremacy of the law but also to the democratic structure of the country. The need of the hour is for the judiciary to maintain its impartiality and adherence to the Constitution, confront these dangers, and restore balance in justice within society. A statement made by Judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav at a program organized by a dangerous communal organization like the Vishva Hindu Parishad exposes a distressing truth. While speaking on the subject of a Uniform Civil Code, he spread venom against Muslims, raising questions about judicial impartiality. This statement is not only a stain on the transparency of the judiciary but also a serious threat to the secular democratic principles of the country.
Comments
Post a Comment