Supreme Court Must Come To Rescue People From The Communal Fire

By Dr. Gyan Pathak

There is more to the communal fire into which people of India are being systematically pushed, both through illegal and legal stratagem. There are instances of even misusing the apex legal platform of the country the Supreme Court of India. Hearings by various courts in relation to the Places of Worship Act 1991, can be cited as examples, which provides maintenance of religious character of a place as existed on August 15, 1947, when India became independent. Supreme Court of India will be hearing only one aspect of the issue – its constitutional validity – on December 4, 2024, but there are much more things needed to be addressed, to rescue the people from the communal fire.

Presently, about a dozen of known and much publicized cases are being heard by the courts of India across various states, and every case has a its unique background. However, one thing is common – claims are being made that Mosques or Dargah (places of worship) were built on the places where there were Hindu temples.

In 1947, Somnath Temple of Gujarat, was ordered to be reconstructed, and there was an understanding between both the Hindu and Muslim leadership that it would be the last in the country. Understanding was considered necessary so that both the communities could live in peace. However, claims over Mosques and Muslim places of worship continued. Even in case of Somnath temple, in October 2024, Supreme Court had declined an immediate halt to demolition of Muslim properties near Somnath Temple. Gujarat government justifies its demolition action alleging encroachments.

Ayodhya Ram Mandir and Babri Mosque issue is well known. Mosque was demolished in 1992, following large scale loss of lives and properties in Hindu-Muslim riots across the country. Supreme Court of India delivered a judgement in favour of the Ram Temple in 2019 while ordering land to be allotted somewhere else for the Babri Mosque. Ram Temple was built, and PM Narendra Modi inaugurated it in January 2024.

During the entire Ram Temple campaign, it was repeated rhetoric that “Ayodhya to Jhanki hai, Mathura Kashi Baki Hai” (Ayodhya was only the beginning, and Mathura and Kashi are the next). The rhetoric alerted the ruling establishment at the Centre, and the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991 was enacted. Since Ayodhya case was already in court, the Act kept it out of its purview.

The provision under the Places of Worship Act 1991 prohibited any change in character of any religious place, and the objective of the Act was to put stop on escalation of such cases in the country to saves lives and properties from the communal fire. It should be noted that Kashi was one of places in the rhetoric and slogans. Gyanvapi case came to the Supreme Court of India, and in 2022, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud led bench observed that 1991 Act did not prohibit ascertaining the religious character of the structure, even if its use cannot be changed. It was an oversight of the basic purpose of the Act. His decision opened the floodgate of cases against the Mosques and Muslim places of Worships, which are ultimately leading to communal disturbances. It should not be out of place to mention that Justice Chandrachud was also one of the judges of Ayodhya judgement of 1019.

It is in this backdrop he has been alleged of having Hindu bias. Nevertheless, the people having lenient view, have said that Justice Chandrachud might be himself a victim of Hindu religious bias, or at best his observation was just an oversight of the fundamental purpose of the Places of Worship Act 2019. However, in April 2024, Chandrachud’s bench ordered in Kashi issue that status quo be maintained so that both communities can perform religious worship. By that time damage have already been done. What is the purpose of ascertaining the religious character of a place of worship if the character can’t be changed? Would not such exercises give way to communal strife and riots?

Among the several cases being heard in courts the much publicized cases are relating to Teele Wali Masjid, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh; Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque, Qutub Minar, Delhi; Gyanvapi Mosque, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh; Kamal Maula Mosque, Bhojshala Complex, Madhya Pradesh; Shamsi Shahi Masjid, Badaun, Uttar Pradesh; Atala Masjid, Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh; Shahi Eidgah Masjid, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh; Jama Masjid, Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh; Jama Masjid and Dargah of Shikh Salim Chisti at Fatehpur Sikri, Uttar Pradesh; and now the Ajmer Sharif Dargah, Rajasthan. There may be several less publicized cases across the countries.

A bench consisting of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar will conduct the hearing on December 4, 2024 on only one aspect, ie the constitution validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. Six petitions altogether have been filed. One set of petitions filed on behalf of Hindus have challenged the constitutional validity of the Act, while the other set of petitions have supported the legislation. Some of the Hindu petitioners had filed the case against the Act in 2020, while Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind had filed its petition in support of the Act in 2022.

Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind has recently, after the Sambhal violence, requested the Supreme Court to hear the case urgently. It is to be seen if the Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice would also rectify the oversight of objective of the Act of 1991 committed by the then Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud that has opened the door for claims and counterclaims on religious places leading to communal violence in several places in the country. Supreme Court had greater responsibilities than to decide on only the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship Act 2019. (IPA Service)