In a significant development, the Supreme Court has stepped in to ensure the delicate balance of communal harmony by issuing an interim order to halt trial courts across the country from initiating surveys or passing judgments on disputed religious structures. The ruling, delivered by a bench led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna alongside Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan, underscores the importance of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which aims to preserve the religious character of such sites as they stood in 1947.
The Act, often hailed as a cornerstone of India’s commitment to unity, was spotlighted in the landmark 2019 Ayodhya verdict. In its order, the bench reiterated, “As the matter of the Act's validity remains sub-judice, no fresh suits or proceedings shall be initiated, and no conclusive orders shall be passed in the existing ones.” The directive aims to prevent further escalation of disputes while the law’s validity is being examined.
The ongoing scrutiny of the Act stems from a petition filed by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay, who argued that the law unfairly denies justice to Hindu, Jain, Buddhist, and Sikh communities by perpetuating historical wrongs. His petition, which sparked widespread debate, claims that the Act prevents legal recourse for reclaiming places of worship allegedly altered during invasions. In 2021, the Supreme Court agreed to examine his plea, inviting legal and public discourse on a matter of immense sensitivity.
Adding to the complexity, organizations like Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind have intervened, highlighting the potential ramifications for Islamic places of worship currently under scrutiny. The Act, however, explicitly excludes the Ram Janmabhoomi site, which was resolved in the Supreme Court’s 2019 verdict.
This legal battle has cast a spotlight on high-profile cases involving historic sites like the Gyanvapi Mosque, Shahi Eidgah Masjid, and Ajmer Dargah, where claims of temples being replaced by mosques have fueled tensions.
At its heart, the Supreme Court’s interim order reflects a bid to foster patience and dialogue while the broader constitutional issues are resolved. The ruling serves as a reminder of India’s diverse religious fabric and the need to navigate these disputes with care, ensuring justice without jeopardizing harmony.
