Does the law permit the discovery of a temple at the base of a mosque? Know, what does the Place of Worship Act say?

Places of Worship Act: In recent times, the trend of establishing temples at the base of mosques and dargahs has increased in India. The sequence that started from Gyanvapi Mosque of Varanasi, Shahi Eidgah of Mathura and Kamal Maula Mosque of Dhar in Madhya Pradesh continues till the Mosque of Sambhal in Uttar Pradesh and the Dargah of Ajmer Sharif in Rajasthan. The controversy sparked by a Hindu party’s claim that the royal Jama Masjid in Sambhal was originally a Harihar temple has turned violent. When such cases are happening continuously, it is natural to raise the question that what does the law of the country say in this matter? Let’s find out.

This is what the law says about the dispute regarding the place of worship
The ‘Places of Worship Act’ applies in disputes related to places of worship. This law, passed by the country’s Parliament in 1991, says that any place of worship should be preserved as it was on August 15, 1947, its religious nature and religious identity should not be tampered with.

Then what happened in the Ram temple case of Ayodhya?

According to the Places of Worship Act, no legal action can be taken, no new case can be initiated to change the religious identity of places of worship. However, the dispute between Ram Janmabhoomi and Babri Masjid in Ayodhya was kept out of the scope of this Act. So that Ram temple can be built in Ayodhya.

This law has been criticized

Despite being in force since 1991, this law has been criticized on many grounds. Demands for repeal of this law have been raised from time to time by various religious organizations and individuals.

What do constitutional experts say?

Constitutional expert Prof. Faizan Mustafa says, ‘This law is based on the principle that wrongs committed in the past cannot be corrected by law. ‘There was a tradition of demolishing temples in India even before the arrival of Muslims, so there is no benefit in getting into such a controversy.’

Then why does the court accept the application in such a case?

In such a situation, the court accepts the application on the basis of which there is a comment by former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court D.Y. Chandrachud. During the hearing of one such case in May, 2022, Justice DY Chandrachud said, ‘If there is no intention to change the status of a place of worship as on August 15, 1947, then any place of worship under the Places of Worship Act, 1991 We cannot be prevented from confirming the religious nature of the site. That is, if there is no intention to change any religious place, then its history can be traced, what was there before can be investigated. Based on this comment, people have started filing petitions in the court and the court has also started accepting them.

This was the issue at the core of the Chief Justice’s comment.

In August 2021, five women associated with the Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh filed a petition in the Civil Court of Varanasi, claiming that the Gyanvapi Masjid, a Hindu prayer site behind the western wall of the complex, should be allowed to worship. Needed The petition also claimed that there are idols of many Hindu deities in the Gyanvapi Masjid complex.

A survey was ordered and challenged

Based on the petition, the judge ordered a videographic survey to ascertain the presence of idols in the mosque premises. The mosque committee challenged the order in the Allahabad High Court on the basis of the 1991 Act. But first the High Court and then the Supreme Court refused to ban the survey. During the hearing of this case, Justice DY Chandrachud made such a comment, due to which applications are coming one after the other and the controversy is increasing.

Places of worship law has been challenged

The Places of Worship Act, 1991 has been challenged in the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds. In this regard, four separate petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court. In September 2022, the then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court U. U Lalit had asked the Central Government to file a reply on these petitions within two weeks, but more than two years have passed, till now no work has been done in this direction.