After temporarily halting the exercise started by a section of Hindutva apparatchiks targeting a Mughal era mosque in Sambhal in Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court has followed up on it and formed a special bench to hear petitions against the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. It’s a welcome decision. The cases will now come up for hearing this week itself.
The aim of the law was explained in detail by the government while moving it in Parliament: India comprises people of diverse origins and its history is bitter-sweet; it’s futile to go back, dig up the past and settle the accounts of bitterness in a spirit of adversity; and we as a nation should carry the sweetness of the past in the new spirit of constitutionalism and the fraternity it advocates.
The law set the threshold on August 15, 1947, for obvious reasons. It is no secret that the Parliament enacted it in the background of the acrimonious demand for razing the Babri Masjid and building a Ram temple in its place. It was aimed to protect the religious character of the other places of worship.
And while it is true that the religious character of a place can be protected only if it is determined, the law has provided no specific guidelines for the process to do so. Yet some smart alecks have come up with the curious notion that digging up a place of worship can throw light on its religious character as of 1947.
Now, conscientious courts could have dumped such an interpretation of the law at the very outset. For, digging up the past would defeat the very purpose of the law as well as the intent of the lawmakers who framed it, but it was not to be. Surveys and digging on the orders of courts have started at different parts of the country at a frenetic pace instead. It is also on the strength of a remark made by a former Chief Justice while hearing a related case.
This charade must end. Either Parliament or constitutional courts can amend or read down the Act, or everyone must follow the law. Undermining the law through nefarious means and underhanded ways will be detrimental to the very idea of the rule of law. A decision by the apex court will help clear the air.
