LEGAL BOUNDARIES OF RELIGIOUS DISPUTES: A STUDY OF THE PLACES OF

WORSHIP (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) ACT, 1991

Introduction

Since ancient times, religion has played a significant role in shaping civilisations,

especially in India, a country characterized by diverse religious traditions and deep religious

consciousness. India is the birthplace of several ancient religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, and

Jainism, while Sikhism is a newer tradition. Additionally, foreign religions such as Christianity,

Islam and Judaism have also flourished here. For centuries, places of worship have been central

to these religions, becoming indispensable features of each.

Despite their divergent basic tenets, conceptual faith and beliefs, all religions share

common ideals of love, tolerance, compassion and sacrifice for the attainment of divinity. While

religions promote unity and self-discipline; at the same time, persecution, atrocities, and

devastation have been carried out in the name of religion innumerable times worldwide and India

is no exception. Even after independence, religious conflicts, particularly involving places of

worship, persist.

Places of worship have always been viewed with reverence and considered sacrosanct in

India. Every individual, regardless of their religious community, has a deep interest in the

protection of religious shrines belonging to his faith. That is why, any assault on a religious

shrine is seen as an assault on the very identity of the community to which it belongs. In fact,

attempt at desecration or destruction of a religious place has the potential to severely outrage the
religious sentiments of the masses and disturb communal harmony. Therefore, adequate legal and

social measures are essential to protect these religious spaces in multi-religious Indian society.

When a religious site holds significance for more than one faith based on mythological,

theological, or historical importance attached to it, conflicts arise due to contesting claims

(Breger et.al., 2010, p.12), differing religious practices, and the desire for exclusive control over

the site by excluding individuals of other faith, thereby fostering social unrest and discord. These

disputes often result in the site being labelled as “disputed”. For example, Jerusalem holds

religious significance for Jews, Christians, and Muslims, in particular, the Temple Mount-Al

Aqsa Mosque complex is highly contested between Jews and Muslims (Breger et.al., 2010, p.7).

Similarly, in India, there are claims that around 3000 religious structures were built after

demolishing Hindu, Jain, or Buddhist religious shrines. Key sites like Babri Masjid in Ayodhya,

Shahi Eidgah Masjid in Mathura, and Gyanvapi Masjid in Varanasi are central to such

reclamation efforts by Hindus.

The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 was enacted to foreclose the inter-

religious and intra-religious controversies surrounding the places of worship, including the

demands of restoration of ancient religious structures of Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains, presently

in the occupation of other religious communities, such as Muslims, or Christians. However, legal

battles regarding several disputed religious structures, such as Shahi Eidgah Mosque of Mathura,

Gyanvapi Mosque of Varanasi, Teele wali Masjid in Lucknow, Bhojshala Complex in Dhar, Jama

Masjid of Sambhal, Malali Masjid of Mangaluru, Qutub Minar Complex in Delhi, Jama Masjid

of Budaun, Atala Mosque in Jaunpur, Jamia Masjid of Srirangapatna, tomb of Rashid Khan in

Farrukhabad, Dargah of Salim Chishti in Fatehpur Sikri, Dargah of Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti

in Ajmer etc. indicate that the 1991 Act has not succeeded in its aim of preventing litigation over
religious structures (Batra & Priyanka, 2022). In addition, the constitutional validity of the 1991

Act has been challenged in the Supreme Court, raising serious concerns about its

implementation and effectiveness.

The article critically analyses the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991,

exploring its critical role in maintaining communal harmony and secularism, examining judicial

perspective, and identifying areas for potential amendments. Understanding these aspects will

help in evaluating the Act's effectiveness in resolving the complexities of numerous disputes

regarding places of worship in India.

Conflicts Regarding Places of Worship in India: A Historical Perspective

The religious identity of places of worship is often intertwined with aspects of collective identity,

culture, and history of communities. This has led to communal tensions, fierce contestations and

legal battles as different groups assert exclusive religious and historical claims over them.

Several legal disputes concerning places of worship in India can be examined below:

Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid Ayodhya Dispute

An ancient temple, believed to mark Lord Ram’s birthplace, was devastated in 1528 under the

orders of Babur, and a structure called ‘Babri Masjid’ was erected in its place

(Gazzetteer―Faizabad, 1960, p.352; Jain, 2017, p.14). The disputed site spanned 2.77 acres.

After the clashes between Hindus and Muslims in 1856-57, the British administration built a

grill-brick wall to divide the site into inner and outer courtyards. In 1949, idols of Lord Ram

Lalla were placed under the central dome of the Babri Masjid, within the inner courtyard (Siddiq

v. Suresh Das, 2019, para 786). The mosque structure was subsequently demolished by

Karsevaks on December 6, 1992, an event widely condemned as a ‘national shame’ (Ismail

Faruqui v. Union of India, 1995) and an ‘egregious violation of the rule of law’ (Siddiq v. Suresh

Das, 2019). Despite the destruction of the disputed structure, the worship of Lord Ram Lalla

continued in a tent on the site.

In 2003, following the Allahabad High Court's order, the Archaeological Survey of India

(ASI) conducted a survey and excavation of the site (Jain, 2017, p. 116) and uncovered remnants

of a prior ‘non-Islamic’ structure (Siddiq v. Suresh Das, 2019, para 508). In 2010, the High Court

partitioned the disputed site into three equal parts (Jain, 2017, p.140). This ruling was challenged

and finally adjudicated by the Supreme Court in 2019, allowing the construction of a temple on

the site while granting a separate 5 acres of land to the Muslim community as restitution (Siddiq

v. Suresh Das, 2019, para 801, 805). Notably, this legal adjudication was possible due to the

express exemption granted under §5 of the 1991 Act. However, all other disputes related to

places of worship are covered by the prohibitory provision under §4 of the Act.

Krishna Janmabhoomi-Masjid Shahi Eidgah Mathura Dispute

Masjid Shahi Eidgah was built in 1670 under the orders of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb,

following the demolition of the Keshav Dev Temple, which marked the birthplace of Lord

Krishna (Jain, 2019, p. 73). It is also widely believed that the idols from the demolished temple

were buried beneath the steps of Jahanara’s mosque in Agra (Pauwels, 2011). Historical records

show that Raja Patni Mal of Benaras purchased the land of the ancient temple from East India

Company (Jain, 2021, p.144) and subsequent civil court rulings upheld ownership rights against

Muslim claimants (Jain, 2019, p.76). The land was later acquired by Jugal Kishore Birla and

dedicated to the ‘Shri Krishna Janmbhoomi Trust’ in 1951 for the purpose of constructing a

temple.
Later, the society namely ‘Shree Krishna Janmasthan Sewa Sangh’ responsible for overseeing the

trust's affairs, initiated legal action against the Muslim occupants, seeking their eviction.

However, in 1968, the society entered into a compromise acknowledging Muslim possession of

the Shahi Eidgah land. At present, the Janmabhoomi temple is consecrated alongside the

structure of Shahi Eidgah Masjid. Several lawsuits challenging the compromise as fraudulent

have been filed, demanding the removal of Masjid Shahi Eidgah and restoration of the land to

the presiding deity, Lord Keshav Dev. These cases are being heard by the High Court.

Vishweshwara Temple-Gyanvapi Masjid Varanasi Dispute

Throughout history, the ancient Vishweshwara temple has faced multiple instances of

devastation and has been reconsecrated several times. Raziya Masjid, believed to be the ‘original

seat’ of the Jyotirlinga, (Jain, 2019, p.94) is located some distance from the present temple. The

second location of the Vishweshwara temple corresponds to the site of Gyanvapi Masjid, which

was built in 1669 after the partial demolition of the temple under the orders of Aurangzeb (Jain,

2019, p.96; Sampath, 2024, p.59). The present temple was consecrated in 1777 by Ahilyabai

Holkar, adjacent to the mosque (Jain, 2019, p.97).

The 1936 ruling in the civil suit of Din Mohammad & Ors. v Secretary of State for India

accepted the mosque and its courtyard as waqf property, but excluded the enclosure of the

property from such recognition, a decision later affirmed by the High Court. Unlike Babri Masjid

of Ayodhya, where namaz was not offered from 1949 until its demolition in 1992, Gyanvapi

Masjid continues to be used for namaz (Batra & Priyanka, 2022). Curiously, Raziya Masjid is not

subject to any legal dispute. In contrast, Gyanvapi Masjid has been the subject to ongoing

litigation since 1991.

The situation escalated with the petition seeking the regular worship of Goddess Shringar Gauri

at the mosque’s western wall. In addition, lawsuits demanding the removal of Gyanvapi mosque

structure, restoration of the land to the presiding deity, and the resumption of worship within the

ancient temple are also pending. A court-order survey in 2021 uncovered a stone structure

resembling a Shivling surrounded by a well-like enclosure in the ablution pond of the mosque,

which led to its sealing under a civil court order, later upheld by the Supreme Court (Batra and

Priyanka, 2022). The ASI also conducted a survey of the premises, excluding the ablution pond,

and in its report confirmed the existence of a Hindu temple, with its remnants reused in the

mosque's construction.

Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Dargah Dispute

Originally a Saraswati temple and center for Sanskrit learning built in 11th century under King

Bhoja's patronage, (Jain, 2019, p.158) the structure was partially demolished in 1305 and

converted into a mosque, utilizing the remnants of the temple. The tomb of Kamal al-Din Chishti

was built in 1459 next to it. The site is under the control of the ASI (Willis, 2012). In 1997, the

government permitted Muslims to offer namaz on Fridays, while restricting Hindus to worship

only once an year during Basant Panchmi (Goradia, 2002, p.86). Since 2003, Hindu worship has

been allowed on Tuesdays.

Litigation demanding the banning of namaz and permanent restoration of Hindu worship rights

continues in the Madhya Pradesh High Court. In 2024, following the High Court's order, the ASI

conducted a scientific survey, which revealed that the existing structure was constructed using

remnants from a pre-existing temple, with evidence of deliberate modifications and large-scale

defacement of Hindu idols.

Quwwat-ul-Islam Masjid Dispute

Quwwat-ul-Islam mosque, located within the Qutub Minar Complex, was built in 1191 CE after

the demolition of 27 Hindu and Jain temples, with the remnants of these temples utilized in its

construction (Goradia, 2002, p.50). The complex is managed by the ASI and a petition seeking

the resumption of Hindu and Jain worship at the site, earlier dismissed by the civil court, is

currently pending before the district court. The ASI has opposed this petition, stating that the site

is a protected historical monument, not an active place of worship.

Harihar Temple-Shahi Jami Masjid Sambhal Dispute

The Shahi Jami Masjid is currently a ‘protected monument’ under the ASI. A lawsuit was filed

claiming that the mosque structure was built in 1526 after demolishing the ancient Harihar

Temple under Babur's orders. The civil court ordered a survey, which led to a communal riot.

The High Court stayed the proceedings of the civil court, and the Supreme Court prohibited

worship at a well situate outside the mosque’s boundary wall.

These legal disputes highlight the deep sensitivities surrounding places of worship and

the intertwined nature of religious identity, culture, and history. When one community asserts

dominance over a religious place shared by multiple communities, or seeks to reclaim its lost

religious heritage, it can be perceived as a threat to its religious identity of the others, leading to

heightened tensions and social unrest. Transcending mere proprietary or religious rights, these

disputes can have profound and far-reaching consequences on the social fabric of the country.

Resolving such conflicts require a careful, justifiable, and impartial approach to maintain

communal harmony and ensure the peaceful coexistence of India's diverse religious

communities.
 This historical overview of conflicts regarding religious places underscores the need for

thoughtful intervention, legal frameworks, and societal dialogue to address these sensitive issues

in the pursuit of lasting peace.

The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991: Legislative Perspective

The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act,1991 was enacted in response to a

nationwide massive movement for the reclamation of Lord Ram's birthplace in Ayodhya and the

construction of a temple at the site of Babri Masjid. The Act, after being passed by the Lok

Sabha on September 10, 1991, and by the Rajya Sabha on September 12, 1991, received the

presidential assent on September 18, 1991.

The central premise of the Act is to preserve the religious status quo of places of worship

as they stood on 15th August 1947―the day India gained independence from British rule. The

Act prevents the initiation of new claims or the revival of past claims concerning the historical or

original status of religious structures. It is immaterial whether a religious structure was forcibly

usurped, converted, or devastated at any point in history. The Act solely focuses on maintaining

the religious character as of Independence day.

The Act under §2(c) defines places of worship broadly, including temples, mosques,

gurudwaras, churches, monasteries, and any other public religious spaces of any denomination.

The Supreme Court, in the Ayodhya judgment (Siddiq v. Suresh Das, 2019, para 80) affirmed that

this definition of encompasses places of worship across all religions and denominations,

underscoring India’s commitment to secularism. The law ensures equal treatment of all religions,

preventing majoritarian claims to places of worship while excluding private places of

worship―such as temples on private property―from its scope.

 (a) Religious Conversion and its Restrictions

The Act under §2(b) has defined ‘conversion’ as ‘including change or alteration of

whatever nature’. The Act specifically prohibits any change or conversions in the religious

character of worship sites, not just between different religions but also within sects of the same

religion. This means a Shia mosque cannot be converted to a Sunni mosque, nor can a Jain

temple of the Shvetambara sect be converted into a temple for Digambara sect. The Act also

excludes disputes concerning the management and control of religious places from its purview,

provided they do not involve a conversion of the religious character of the structure. In addition,

the Act is applicable solely to those religious institutions that were in existence on the date of

independence, but not those built after Indian independence.

The Act draws a clear distinction between conversions that occurred before and after

India's independence. For conversions prior to August 15, 1947, all legal proceedings are liable

to be automatically abated. In contrast, for conversions that occurred after this cut-off date, legal

proceedings shall continue in accordance with §4(1). It thus mandates that the court, through its

ruling, has to ensure the restoration of the religious character as it existed on August 15, 1947,

and the Punjab and Haryana High Court reaffirmed this position in Bharpur Singh v Union of

India, noting that the Act bars new litigations over the religious character of places of worship,

while cases alleging unlawful conversion of religious status after August 15, 1947 and pending

on the date of the Act's enforcement, may proceed.

Furthermore, the Act does not prevent execution proceedings after passing of a decree.

Thus, the court can determine whether conversion of the religious status of a worship site is the

central issue in a suit before it, or the matter in dispute goes beyond it.
 (b) Role of Courts and the Discretionary Power

The 1991 Act does not explicitly define the term “religious character” or specify the

methods to determine it. Therefore, it is within the discretion of the courts to pass appropriate

orders to ascertain the religious character. For instance, courts may order surveys or excavations

by the ASI, as was done in the Ayodhya dispute in 2003, (Jain, 2017, p.116) or appoint court

commissioners to conduct surveys, as seen in the Ayodhya dispute in 1950 (Siddiq v. Suresh Das,

2019, para 51, 52), and in the Gyanvapi dispute in 2022, to verify the religious nature of the site.

The central objective of the Act is to prevent all demands for the reclamation of erstwhile

religious structures, as such demands could foster religious fanaticism and communal discord,

which are detrimental for development, unity, and harmony in the nation. Therefore, the Act

precludes the courts of law and other authorities from adjudicating any legal proceedings

pertaining to the conversion of religious places.

(c) State Acquisitions and Exemptions

The Act does not prevent the state, from acquiring religious structures for secular or

public purposes, such as road widening or constructing highways for public convenience.

However, the necessity of acquiring a place of worship must outweigh the religious community's

interest in preserving its religious structure.

Exemptions are explicitly stated in §4(3) of the Act, which include situations where

religious sites are already covered under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and

Remains Act, 1958, or where legal disputes have been finally adjudicated, matters finally settled

between the parties, conversion by acquiescence, or matter barred by limitation. The Act also
makes a specific exemption under §5 for Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid in Ayodhya,

acknowledging its unique status.

(d) Penalties and Overriding Effect

The Act prescribes penalties for attempting, aiding, or abetting the conversion of the

religious nature of a place of worship. Such offenses can lead to imprisonment for up to three

years along with a monetary fine (Places of Worship Act, §6). Further, §7 of the Act ensures that

its provisions override any conflicting legal enactment, thereby strengthening its effectiveness.

The Act's overriding effect and its penalties are crucial for maintaining legal consistency and

protecting the secular nature of Indian society. By barring any attempts to alter the religious

character of places of worship, it seems to prevent the escalation of inter-religious tensions and

ensure that the diverse religious landscape of India remains undisturbed.

The Act of 1991: Judicial Interpretation and Application

Although the 1991 Act has precluded the judiciary from adjudicating lawsuits concerning

the alteration of religious nature of shrines for worship, the courts have nevertheless found

opportunities to assess its relevance in maintaining social peace. Through several rulings, the

judiciary has played a crucial role in reinforcing the objectives of the Act while carefully

balancing vested rights or claims over religious sites with the paramount necessity of collective

public welfare.

For example, in the case of Yusuf Ajij Shaikh v Special Land Acquisition Officer, the

Bombay High Court clearly outlined that the objective of the Act is to prevent any alteration in

the religious nature of places of worship. The legislation serves as a statutory safeguard,

preventing any religious community from unlawfully usurping or altering the religious identity
of a place of worship belonging to another faith. The court emphasised that the aim of the Act is

to preserve communal harmony by ensuring that the religious character of places of worship

remains unchanged, while simultaneously providing punitive measures against those who engage

in such transgressions.

This ruling underscores the importance of protecting religious places to ensure the

maintenance of public order. By focussing on both preventive and punitive measures, the court

reaffirmed the law's role in deterring interfaith encroachments, protecting the rule of law and

pluralism, and promoting communal harmony.

In the case of Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and Ors. v Moran Mar Marthoma, the

Supreme Court opined that legal proceedings instituted prior to the enactment of the 1991 Act,

seeking to declare or enforce rights recognized prior to the its passage, are not precluded by its

provisions. This judgment impliedly allowed cases prior to 1991 to continue, created some

ambiguity, especially in relation to §4(2) of the 1991 Act, which seeks to foreclose such disputes.

In the case of Bharpur Singh v Union of India, the High Court reinforced that once a

matter concerning the conversion of a place of worship has been conclusively decided by a

competent court, it cannot be reopened. The court emphasised the importance of judicial finality

under §4 of the Act, which declares that any matter conclusively adjudicated does not fall within

the ambit of the Act.

Addressing the interpretation of §3 of the Act, the Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled in

Satinder Kumar and Ors. v Union of India, that while the provision does not impose an absolute

bar on converting a place of worship for secular purposes, such a change must not be in

contradiction with the site's intrinsic religious character and ethos. Additionally, the court
clarified that the Central Government has the authority to declare any structure as an ‘ancient or

protected monument’ under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act,

1958, in which case the provisions of the 1991 Act would not apply. This ruling illustrated that

secular use of religious sites, such as for community gatherings, education, or tourism etc. is

permissible as long as it does not undermine the site's religious significance, thereby setting a

framework for the courts to determine the alignment of a secular use with the site's sanctity.

In Manikchand Pratapmal Baj v Sakarchand Premchand Gujarathi, the High Court ruled

on the issue of a religious sect seeking exclusive rights to worship a Jain idol, altering its nature

according to its sectarian beliefs. The court held that such a move would constitute a conversion

under the 1991 Act. The court emphasised that the status quo as of 15th August 1947 must be

maintained and that no sect could unilaterally redefine the religious practices or nature of a

shared religious shrine. This judgment holds significance in ensuring that sectarian conflicts over

shared religious heritage are prevented for safeguarding equality and pluralism.

In the landmark M. Siddiq (Dead) through LRs. v Mahant Suresh Das and Ors.,

commonly known as the Ayodhya judgment, the Supreme Court recognised the pivotal role of the

1991 Act in upholding secular values such as liberty, equality of faiths, and non-retrogression.

The court reiterated that the Act's purpose is twofold: it prohibits the conversion of religious

places and imposes a positive obligation to preserve the religious identity of such places as they

stood on 15th August 1947. The court also emphasised that the State has a constitutional

obligation to ensure equality of all religious groups, foster communal harmony, and guarantee

the protection of every religious place of worship. Importantly, the court also noted that historical

disputes should not be revived, and past wrongs cannot justify extra-legal actions, such as the

demolition of the Babri Masjid. Simultaneously, the courts cannot remedy the historical
injustices. This ruling reinforced the need to foreclose all conflicts over religious structures while

setting a precedent for resolving complex inter-religious disputes, thereby safeguarding

communal harmony, pluralism, and secularism.

In another instance, the Delhi Civil Court in Tirthankara Lord Rishab Dev and Ors. v

Union of India, determined that a protected monument is not required to be used actively for

religious purposes. The court clarified that the exemptions under §4 of the 1991 Act should not

be interpreted in such a way as to defeat the Act's primary intent by reviving inter-religious

disputes. The court stressed that such monuments cannot be repurposed in a way that contradicts

their religious character.

The Apex Court, during proceedings in the case of Committee of Management Anjuman

Intezamia Masajid Varanasi v Rakhi Singh and Ors., observed that the ascertainment of the

religious character of a place “as a processural instrument” does not violate the Act, as long as it

does not lead to the physical or functional conversion of the site. Thus, distinguishing procedural

ascertainment of the “religious character” from its substantive conversion has allowed the courts

to address ambiguities or conflicting views in determining the religious identity of places of

worship without infringing on the Act's provisions.

In the case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay and Ors. v Union of India, the Supreme Court

ordered a temporary stay on the registration and proceedings of newly filed lawsuits, as well as

on the issuance of effective orders, whether interim or final, in relation to pending lawsuits; thus,

deviating from its earlier stance of refusing to stay the legal proceedings. The court's temporary

halt indicated its intention to examine the constitutionality of the 1991 Act before allowing

further legal action, as well as the court’s commitment to effectively enforce the objective of the

Act pending its final adjudication on the constitutional validity.

 The ruling in Satinder Kumar v. Union of India, has sparked debates about the

permissibility of secular use of a religious structure. It may be argued that any non-religious use

may inherently alter the religious nature of a shrine. The ruling illustrates that determining

whether secular use aligns with the religious ethos of a site requires a subjective evaluation based

on the specific facts of each case. Even if deemed compatible, such secular uses may still offend

the religious sentiments of believers for undermining the religious significance of the place.

The judgment in Moran Mar Marthoma was later criticised by the Supreme Court in its

landmark Ayodhya ruling, holding it to be erroneous and contrary to the scheme of §4(2) of the

1991 Act. Thus, rejecting the ambiguous precedent of Moran Mar Marthoma, the Apex Court

reaffirmed the objective of the Act to prevent the revival of old controversies, ensuring that the

broader legislative purpose is not undermined by allowing litigation predating the enactment of

the 1991 Act.

While the Ayodhya dispute was explicitly exempted under §5 of the 1991 Act, its ruling

emphasised the broader relevance of the Act within Indian pluralistic society. The Supreme Court

also cautioned against reopening historical grievances that could disrupt peace and social

stability. The court unequivocally condemned and disaffirmed any attempt to repeat an incident

analogous to the forcible demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992. The judgment serves as a reminder

that historical wrongs cannot justify the disruption of India's secular fabric.

Lastly, the Civil Court ruling in Tirthankara Lord Rishab Dev, sought to prevent any

interpretations of the 1991 Act that would allow the reopening of inter-religious historical

disputes. This reinforced the Act's legislative intent to prevent the revival of historical claims and

promote peace and harmony in the society.

 The judicial interpretation of the 1991 Act has reinforced its role in preventing the

resurgence of historical inter-religious and intra-religious disputes while upholding India's

commitment to secularism. The judiciary’s careful balancing of competing interests, as

demonstrated in several landmark cases, plays a vital role in ensuring that the Act's objectives are

met while maintaining public order and peace.

Criticisms of the 1991 Act

The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 has faced significant opposition from

various groups, particularly those advocating for the restoration of the ancient religious and

cultural heritage. Critics argue that the Act violates fundamental rights such as the freedom of

religion, the right to seek justice, and judicial review, while also conflicting with the principle of

secularism. These concerns focus on the limitations the Act imposes on the exercise of religious

freedoms and its impact on historical claims.

(a) Perpetuation of Historical Injustices

A major criticism of the Act is that it overlooks historical injustices suffered by indigenous

communities, particularly during the medieval period. In the Ayodhya judgment, the Supreme

Court declared that “independence was a watershed moment to heal the wounds of the past”

(Siddiq v. Suresh Das, 2019, para 83). Consequently, after independence, Indian citizens should

have been given the right to restore their religious shrines as a means of redressing historical

injustices arising from their deprivation of such shrines. By freezing the status quo, the Act

effectively legitimizes past injustices, denying the remedial measures to redress historical

wrongs.

(b) Hindrance to Peaceful Resolution of Claims

The 1991 Act has been criticised for stifling legitimate claims over religious sites that were

wrongfully usurped, thereby discouraging peaceful dialogue and reconciliation. Unlike South

Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which focussed on restorative justice and enabled

peaceful closure of historical grievances, the Act precludes even legitimate claims from being

heard. This suppression fosters resentment, potentially undermining social cohesion and peaceful

coexistence.

(c) Denial of the Right to Seek Justice

The 1991 Act has been accused of violating the right to seek justice through legal means. By

unfairly prohibiting judicial adjudication of disputes, including those under Article 32 and 226 of

the Constitution, the Act limits individuals' access to justice. Thus, this restriction undermines the

basic structure of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees judicial review as a cornerstone of

democratic governance.

(d) Absence of Alternative Legal Remedies

Another significant criticism is the Act's failure to provide an alternative dispute resolution

mechanism, leaving parties without any recourse to resolve their disputes. In Ismail Faruqui v.

Union of India (1995), the Supreme Court invalidated §4(3) in the Acquisition of Certain Areas

at Ayodhya Act, 1993 for not offering such alternatives. Similarly, the 1991 Act's lack of an

alternative resolution process has been flagged as a violation of the rule of law.

(e) Restriction on Religious Freedom

The Act has been criticised for violating Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees the

freedom of religion. By preventing individuals from seeking the restoration of religious sites

central to their beliefs and religious identity, the Act unjustly limits their ability to practice their
faith. Critics contend that this limitation on religious freedom is an infringement upon their

constitutional rights.

As such, the contested validity of the 1991 Act reflects deeper tensions between the

imperatives of addressing past injustices and maintaining communal harmony in the present.

Implementation Challenges and Loopholes

The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 faces significant challenges in its

implementation. Numerous ongoing lawsuits seeking the reclamation of ancient religious sites

contradict the Act's primary objective of freezing the status quo and preventing the revival of

historical disputes. This raises concerns about the Act's effectiveness and enforcement.

The absence of precise definition for term “religious character” and “criteria for its

determination” has led to inconsistent judicial interpretations. In Tirthankar Lord Rishab Dev,

the civil court dismissed a petition seeking resumption of worship at the Qutub Minar complex,

citing the legal restrictions imposed by the Act. However, in contrast, the Allahabad High Court,

in a lawsuit demanding reclamation of the ancient Vishweshwara Temple, declared that the 1991

Act did not bar the suit, indicating inconsistencies in applying the law.

Moreover, the Act's exemptions, such as those for ancient monuments or cases already

adjudicated, can be exploited to bypass its provisions. For instance, the legal dispute over Masjid

Shahi Eidgah in Mathura uses a 1968 compromise and a 1973-74 civil court decree to invoke the

exemptions, weakening the Act's core purpose.

Conclusion and Recommendations

 While the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 plays an essential role in

maintaining India's secular fabric, it has significant shortcomings. Critics argue that the Act fails

to adequately address historical grievances, leaving many disputes unresolved. Moreover,

ambiguities in the law and loopholes in its application undermine its intended purpose.

To improve the Act, it is suggested that the punishment for converting a place of worship

be increased to at least five years, providing a stronger deterrent. A clearer definition of terms

such as “religious character” should be introduced, and criteria for determining this should be

specified. Additionally, the Act should include provisions for speedy trials in special courts,

ensuring cases involving post-1947 conversions are adjudicated within a fixed time frame.

Further, the restriction on judicial review should be reconsidered, with exemptions for writ

jurisdiction under Article 32 and 226. Lastly, abated legal proceedings that were pending before

July 11, 1991, should be revived for adjudication, while new litigations should be barred.

While the Supreme Court has not yet tested the constitutionality of the 1991 Act, its

future ruling will have profound implications for the fate of religious disputes in India. A

judgment declaring the Act unconstitutional could lead to an overwhelming number of lawsuits,

disrupting societal peace. However, given the Court's obiter dicta in the Ayodhya judgment,

which affirmed the Act's role in maintaining public peace and secularism, it is unlikely that the

law will be declared unconstitutional.

Ultimately, the preservation of religious sites is vital for maintaining peace and unity in

Indian society. The Act's retention is necessary to avoid future destruction of religious shrines

and to ensure that no more communal disturbances occur due to disputes over religious places.

While the complexities of India's religious diversity make a Truth and Reconciliation
Commission-style approach challenging, the Act offers a necessity safeguard to prevent further

discord.