Congress Leaders Petition Supreme Court to Halt Surveys at Disputed Mosques

On November 30th, Congress leaders Alok Sharma and Priya Mishra filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court, requesting a halt to the execution of court-mandated surveys at religious sites. In their petition, they pointed to potential violations of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.

Congress leaders Alok Sharma and Priya Mishra file petition to stop survey of religious sites citing Places of Worship Act, 1991

This petition comes amid recent violence during a court-ordered survey at the Jama Masjid in Sambhal, and after the Ajmer Trial Court accepted a petition asserting that the Ajmer Sharif Dargah was once a Shiv Mandir.

Petitioners Urge Compliance with the Places of Worship Act

In the petition, Congress leaders urged the Supreme Court to issue orders directing state governments and lower courts to refrain from implementing survey orders, which they argue could jeopardize “communal harmony.” The petitioners also requested instructions to ensure that all relevant cases are examined by higher courts before any action is taken, referencing the 1991 Act, which requires the preservation of the status quo of religious sites as of August 15, 1947.

Additionally, they sought a stay on all pending survey orders and asked the Supreme Court to instruct state governments and union territories to prioritize peace. The petition stated: “To maintain harmony, orders by civil courts should not be executed hastily. Instead, they should be brought before the High Court or the Supreme Court.”

‘Cases stirring communal unrest’, claim Congress leaders

In the petition, Congress leaders Sharma and Mishra referred to several incidents they claimed fueled communal tensions, including those at the Ajmer Sharif Dargah, Sambhal Jama Masjid, Mathura's Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Masjid, and Varanasi's Gyanvapi mosque.

The petition, filed by Advocate Narendra Mishra, argues that the legal actions seeking surveys of religious sites are prohibited under the 1991 Act. The petitioners assert that ongoing legal conflicts over these historical religious sites could threaten the country's communal harmony.

Exceptions to the Places of Worship Act: A Detailed Explanation of Provisions

In 1991, the Congress government led by PV Narasimha Rao enacted the Places of Worship Act to preserve the religious character of places of worship as they stood in 1947, with the exception of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid issue, which was already being addressed in court.

The Act stipulates that the religious character of a place of worship must remain unchanged from what it was on August 15, 1947. It also prohibits any conversion of a religious site from one denomination or sect to another. Additionally, the Act mandates that any legal action or proceedings concerning the alteration of the religious character of a place of worship, which were pending on August 15, 1947, will be terminated once the law is enacted, preventing further legal challenges. Moreover, the Act imposes a duty on the state to preserve the religious identity of every place of worship as it was at the time of independence.

While the 1991 Act safeguards the religious character of places of worship as they existed in 1947, it includes certain exceptions to address historical, legal, and social realities that may require deviations from the general rules.

One major exception pertains to sites that are classified as ancient or historical monuments or archaeological sites. These are governed by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act of 1958, or similar laws. Specifically, Section 3 of the Act recognizes that such monuments, which often hold national and cultural significance, are not solely religious in nature. These sites are subject to distinct legal frameworks focused on preservation and research, ensuring that they are managed for conservation and scholarly purposes.

Jama Masjid in Sambhal: ASI-Protected Site, Survey Conducted Legally

The Jama Masjid in Sambhal is an ASI (Archaeological Survey of India) protected site. As such, it is subject to the provisions of the 1991 Act, which allows a court to order a survey. This applies to other ASI-protected sites in India that were constructed after the demolition of Hindu temples.

Interestingly, in an affidavit, the ASI stated that its officers were not permitted entry to the mosque for inspection. The ASI also claimed that the Jama Masjid management committee has made several changes and modifications within the mosque. According to the ASI, an inspection of the mosque took place once in 1998 and again in June 2024. Vinod Singh Rawat, the Superintending Archaeologist for ASI’s Meerut circle, confirmed that the Jama Masjid management committee has undertaken various alterations to the mosque. Rawat further noted that the management committee has restricted the ASI team from conducting inspections, leaving the ASI unaware of the mosque’s current condition or any additions that may have been made.

A key exception in the 1991 Act pertains to disputes regarding the religious nature of places of worship that were resolved before the Act’s enforcement on July 11, 1991. The Act states that cases settled through the courts, tribunals, or mutual agreements prior to this date cannot be reopened under its provisions, aiming to uphold legal finality and prevent the resurgence of resolved disputes.

An example of this is the Krishna Janmabhoomi case. The land dispute was settled through an agreement, and the 1991 Act protected that settlement. However, a petition to the court argued that the agreement was not legally binding and called for a survey to be conducted. The petitioners also contended that, as the site is ASI-protected, it should be governed by the "Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958," not the Places of Worship Act. The case is still under legal consideration.

The Act also excludes religious structures converted before its commencement. It recognizes conversions that occurred with consent, either explicit or implied. In such instances, the Act prevents legal challenges to the changes. These exemptions ensure that alterations made prior to 1991, whether widely accepted or legally protected, remain unaffected.

Conclusion

The petition filed by Congress leaders Alok Sharma and Priya Mishra, which seeks to halt court-ordered surveys under the Places of Worship Act, 1991, fails to consider key exemptions in the Act. For example, surveys of ASI-protected sites such as Sambhal’s Jama Masjid are permitted under the law. Additionally, the Act allows for revisiting disputes resolved before 1991, such as the Krishna Janmabhoomi case. By overlooking these provisions, the petition casts doubt on the true intentions of the Congress leaders behind it.

(This Article was originally published by OpIndia)