Gyanvapi order

UPHOLDING the maintainability of the Gyanvapi suit, the Varanasi district court has decided to continue hearing a petition seeking daily worship of Hindu deities whose idols are located on an outer wall of the mosque in question. The court has rejected the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee’s plea, which had cited the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, to argue that the case was baseless. This Act was enacted in September 1991 with the purpose of prohibiting ‘conversion of any place of worship and to provide for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947.’ The law, however, had kept out of its purview the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute, which was finally resolved by the Supreme Court in November 2019 — nearly 27 years after the demolition of the Babri mosque.

Advertisement

In May this year, an SC Bench had observed that the process to ascertain the religious character of a place of worship was not barred under the 1991 Act. The use of the word ‘ascertain’ is problematic as it causes unwarranted doubts to be raised about a religious place, thus setting into motion a vicious cycle of claims and counter-claims. Moreover, allowing members of one community to offer prayers on the premises of another community’s place of worship — as is the case at Gyanvapi once a year — does tantamount to making an attempt to change the religious character of that place. The law has no provision for such tweaking.

The Varanasi court’s order will not only open the floodgates for litigation concerning disputes between religious communities over places of worship but also have long-term implications for our society whose secular fabric is already under intense strain. Righting of historical wrongs can be perilous beyond a point; it must be prevented from becoming a relentless exercise undertaken by vested interests. The courts need to tread warily and draw the line for the sake of communal harmony. The 1991 Act should be followed both in letter and spirit; a loose or erroneous interpretation of the law can embolden stakeholders to imperil social peace and stability.