As the Supreme Court gears up to hear arguments challenging the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, a significant debate on secularism, historical accountability, and communal harmony will gain greater traction in the days to come. This Act, which freezes the status of religious places as they were on August 15, 1947, is being questioned for allegedly curbing the rights of individuals and communities to reclaim spaces they believe were altered in the past.
The Act was enacted to prevent the use of historical grievances for stoking communal tensions. Introduced during a volatile period in the late 20th century, it aimed to ensure that religious disputes did not tear apart India’s diverse fabric. In the 2019 Ayodhya verdict, despite ruling in favour of the temple, the Supreme Court upheld the Act as a cornerstone of India’s secular ethos. The judgment clarified that historical wrongs cannot justify present-day conflict, and post-Independence India must move forward, leaving behind the divisive ideologies of the past. Now, a bunch of petitioners claim it violates their constitutional rights to address historical injustices, particularly alleging that Hindu temples were converted into mosques during the Mughal era. Paradoxically, they argue this in the name of secularism, ignoring the fact that overturning the Act could destabilise the very secularism they claim to uphold. The consequences of striking down the Act could be grave. It might open the floodgates to a barrage of legal battles over centuries-old religious sites, which, in turn, could reignite communal tensions. Recent disputes, like those involving the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, have already shown how such conflicts can erode trust and peace among communities. Revisiting these age-old wounds risks overburdening the courts apart from posing a threat to India’s pluralistic society.
It goes without saying that reconciliation and coexistence must take precedence over retribution. Independence marked a turning point for India to heal from its historical scars and move towards a more inclusive future. It may be pertinent to note here that the court already exempted the ancient monuments governed by other laws—ruling out potential objective ambiguities. Communal harmony is a non-negotiable aspect for a country as vibrant and diverse as India. Right-wing political parties must exercise caution by not provoking or supporting sentiments that are capable of creating a wedge in Indian society. What’s troubling is how these petitions reflect a larger strategy to exploit legal avenues for ideological goals. The wave of lawsuits targeting specific religious sites is a sociopolitical effort to reshape India’s cultural and religious identity. The Communist Party of India (Marxist), opposing the petitions, has rightly pointed out that this pattern doesn’t sit well with secularism and the rule of law.
The Supreme Court now bears the heavy responsibility of upholding India’s secular vision. Overturning the Act could embolden divisive forces. It would set a dangerous precedent where contested historical narratives would dictate justice. Instead, the Court must reaffirm that India’s strength lies in its diversity and commitment to coexistence. It has to be ensured that history becomes a source of learning, not conflict. The outcome will likely have a significant impact on the future of India’s unity and secular ideals. For the time being, it seems probable that the Supreme Court will maintain the sanctity of the observations made in the five-judge bench Ayodhya verdict.