Venerating the law

Supreme Court must ensure that 1992 is not repeated

The recent controversy over the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi is a big test for the Indian judicial system. The legal process that has been set in motion by a lower court in Varanasi and upheld by no less than the Allahabad High Court last month contravenes the terms of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions Act) 1991 that was passed under the P V Narasimha Rao government. The purpose of this Act, passed in the high tide of the Ram Mandir movement, was to maintain the religious nature of a place of worship as it stood on August 15, 1947. Uniquely, the Babri Masjid dispute was excluded from this. Twenty-seven years after its destruction by religious groups, when a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court led by then chief justice Ranjan Gogoi unanimously ruled in favour of a Ram temple in Ayodhya, that judgment made it clear that its verdict would not act as a precedent to justify communal mobilisations against other places. In other words, the Places of Worship Act would stand, in letter and spirit.

After the verdict, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the organisational foundation of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, had suggested that contentious disputes over the Hindu origins of mosques would not be pursued. However, two years later, a lower court not only admitted a petition by five Hindu women in 2021 to worship some images on the wall of the Gyanvapi mosque, though the 1991 Act specifically prohibits altering or changing the nature of a place of worship, but even went as far as to sanction a videographic survey of the mosque. The survey is reported to have found a hidden shivling  — which the mosque management committee contends is merely a part of a decorative fountain. The two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, which is hearing the appeal by the masjid committee against the Varanasi court's decision, has sought to tamp down the fervid atmospherics around the controversy by directing the district magistrate of Varanasi to secure the area where the reported shivling has been found but not to impede Muslims from accessing the mosque for worship.

However, energetic mobilisation has kept religious emotions running high, especially given the proximity of the Kashi Vishwanath temple, which Hindus deeply venerate. This apart, the Places of Worship Act itself is facing challenges before the court on the grounds that it violates principles of secularism and a raft of constitutional provisions. Another strand of thinking is that the “shrine” is covered by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, and is exempt from the Places of Worship Act. All these developments will stretch the Supreme Court’s interpretive powers but its real test will lie in ensuring that India does not witness a repeat of the events of December 6, 1992. At a time when the government is seeking foreign investment to attain and maintain higher economic growth, a frenzied national discourse on a decidedly medieval issue is unlikely to enhance India’s attractiveness as an investment destination.