New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India is set to address a series of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 on December 12, 2024. This law prohibits changing the religious character of any place of worship as it stood on August 15, 1947.
A three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan, will preside over the matter. The petitions, filed by individuals such as BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay, Subramanian Swamy, and various Hindu organizations, argue that the law is “arbitrary, unreasonable, and infringes on the fundamental right to practice religion.” The petitioners seek to reopen ownership disputes over historically contentious sites, including the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi and the Krishna Janmabhoomi site in Mathura.
The Places of Worship Act was enacted to maintain the religious character of all places of worship as they were on the eve of India’s independence. The only exception was the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute in Ayodhya, which was already a subject of legal proceedings at the time.
In its 2019 Ayodhya verdict, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of this law, emphasizing its role in promoting secularism, a cornerstone of the Indian Constitution. The judgment, authored by then-Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, highlighted that historical wrongs cannot be corrected by individuals or groups taking the law into their own hands. It stressed that the adoption of the Constitution marked a decisive moment in Indian history, moving away from ideologies of religious or ancestral grievances to a framework based on the rule of law.
The Act has been the subject of intense debate in recent months. Petitioners have called for its repeal, claiming it restricts their ability to legally address historical grievances, particularly those concerning alleged conversions of temples into mosques during the Mughal era. The ongoing dispute surrounding the Gyanvapi mosque has further fueled the controversy, with lower courts entertaining claims about its religious character. The Supreme Court, in an earlier observation, clarified that determining the religious character of a site is not explicitly barred by the Act.
Several recent cases, such as those involving sites in Sambhal and Ajmer, have emboldened litigants to seek court-mandated surveys to substantiate their claims, exacerbating tensions across communities.
The issue has sparked widespread public and political discourse, with opposing factions debating the balance between constitutional principles and historical grievances. Observers are keenly awaiting the court’s interpretation of the law’s validity and its implications for India’s secular fabric.
The hearing on December 12 is expected to be a significant legal milestone, shaping the narrative around religious harmony, historical justice, and constitutional values in modern India.
