Frozen in time: The Places of Worship Act's unrealised potential

The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, was a landmark law designed to protect India’s secular fabric by freezing the religious identity of places of worship as they stood on August 15, 1947.

Introduced during a period of heightened political tension, especially the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, the Act sought to prevent the transformation of one religious place of worship into another and communal unrest and destruction of religious structures.

Its goal was clear: to maintain peace and prevent future religious disputes by legally stopping any changes to the religious character of these places, with a notable exception of the Ram Janmabhoomi dispute. However, despite its well-intentioned goals, the Act has largely failed to fulfil its purpose and remains underutilised in addressing India’s religious diversity and tensions.

When enacted, the Act was seen as a necessary step to halt the contentious practice of changing the religious identity of places of worship based on historical disputes. By preserving the status quo as it existed at Independence, the legislations aimed to prevent communal violence and bring an end to long-standing disputes over religious sites.

Late Ram Vilas Paswan, who introduced the Bill, emphasised its role in securing peace, warning that repeated demands to reclaim religious structures could reignite tensions. The Act’s purpose, therefore, was to freeze history at a point where future political or religious movements could not alter it. 

However, despite the Act’s clear purpose, its implementation has been hindered by legal and political challenges, leaving it mostly unused and its goals unachieved. A closer look shows that the Act’s provisions have been contested and have not adapted to India’s changing social and political realities.

One key provision, Section 4, prohibits changing a place of worship’s religious character, while Section 3 prevents any legal actions related to the conversion of these places. These sections were meant to solve religious disputes by stopping future claims about converting religious sites. But the Act’s restriction on legal action has faced serious constitutional challenges. 

The constitutionality of the Act has often been questioned, with critics arguing that it violates fundamental rights, particularly the right to access justice. They claim that by preventing the courts from hearing cases about the religious character of places of worship, the Act denies individuals or communities the right to seek legal redress.

In cases like Anita Kushwaha vs Pushap Sudan (2016), the Supreme Court of India recognised that access to justice is a fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Act, by denying legal recourse for certain communities, is seen as violating their rights and weakening the principle of equality before the law. The lack of judicial intervention also goes against the democratic spirit of India’s judicial system, which serves as a check on possible injustices. 

Furthermore, the Act’s blanket ban on legal action leads to unfair outcomes, especially for communities whose places of worship were historically destroyed or changed. The Gyanvapi case is a prominent example where the religious character of a site is in dispute, but the Act limits the legal options to resolve the issue.

The Act thus fails to consider the complicated nature of many religious sites in India, which often have both religious and historical significance. By limiting communities’ ability to challenge the religious status of such places, the Act unintentionally creates a sense of injustice and neglect.

The Act also overlooks the socio-cultural aspects of religious identity and history. India’s history includes numerous instances of religious and cultural oppression, and for many marginalised communities, reclaiming religious sites is a way to restore dignity and address past wrongs. The Act, by denying judicial recourse, prevents these communities from seeking justice for historical injustices.

In this way, the Act can be seen not as a tool for peace but as a form of historical denial that ignores the lived experiences of disadvantaged communities. The principle of non-retrogression, as seen in Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India (2018), states that rights should progress, not go backward. The Places of Worship Act, by blocking legal action, effectively regresses the rights of communities to address historical wrongs. 

Without its application in some of the most high-profile religious disputes, the Act has not fulfilled its role in preventing the reopening of old conflicts. While it was meant to promote secularism and a balanced understanding of India’s religious diversity, it has not succeeded in these goals.

The Act does not provide a clear way to resolve disputes over places of worship that have both religious significance and a history of political and religious conflict. 

For the Places of Worship Act to be truly effective in promoting communal harmony, its weaknesses must be addressed. The legal framework should be updated to recognise the complex nature of religious sites, acknowledging their historical importance and the intertwined religious identities in India.

The Act should not just freeze history but should provide ways to address disputes without escalating tensions. Clearer guidelines for determining religious character could be a step in the right direction. Additionally, the Act must ensure that its provisions do not prevent communities from seeking justice for historical wrongs.

The Act’s provisions need to be reconsidered in light of current legal and social challenges. If amended and properly enforced, the Act could become an important tool in preventing religious conflicts and promoting a better understanding of India’s religious diversity. But as it stands, it remains an unused legal tool—a missed opportunity to resolve disputes and uphold the justice and equality promised by the Constitution.

(The writer is a student at National Law University, Jodhpur)