After this, the communal tension and incitement should have stopped. But perhaps the ideological source of the BJP, the RSS, has outgrown the control of the thousands of communalists and now they are targeting mosques and dargahs in Kashi and Mathura, which was their old demand. At the time of the construction of the Somnath temple, an agreement was reached between the Hindu and Muslim communities not to target other mosques and dargahs. Even in the Ayodhya verdict, the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991 was upheld, under which provision cannot be made for changing the character of any other place of worship. This Act was declared to be a fulfillment of secularism, which is a fundamental feature of the Indian Constitution.
Many other targets include the prominent Tilla Wali Mosque in Lucknow, Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi, Shamsi Shahi Mosque in Badaun, Atla Mosque in Jaunpur, Shahi Eidgah Mosque in Mathura, Jama Masjid in Sambhal, Fatehpur Sikri (all in Uttar Pradesh), Qutub Minar in Delhi, Kamal Maula Masjid in Bhojshala Complex in Madhya Pradesh, Jama Masjid and Dargah of Sheikh Salim Chishti and Ajmer Sharif Dargah in Rajasthan, besides many other mosques.
The 5 judges of the Ayodhya verdict included Justice Ranjan Gogoi, S.A. Bobde, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S. Abdul Nazeer. Justice Gogoi was nominated as a member of the Rajya Sabha by the BJP just 4 months after retiring from the post of Chief Justice. Several former judges had criticised the decision to allow the construction of a temple at the site of the Babri Masjid demolition. Former Supreme Court judge Justice R.F. Nariman had said that the case had made a “big mockery of justice, as secularism was not given its due due”. Yet, one of the most important aspects of the Ayodhya verdict was the upholding of the Places of Worship Act 1991, which was about preventing communal tension and dissent. However, one of the judges of this bench, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, later made a serious mistake in a 2022 judgment by ignoring the basic objectives of the Places of Worship Act and the Constitution of India.
The Kashi Gyanvapi Masjid case was heard in 2022 by Chief Justice D.Y. Appeared before a bench headed by Justice Chandrachud, in which he had said that the Places of Worship Act, 1991 does not prevent the survey of the religious character of a structure, even though the character of the structure concerned cannot be changed. This led to a flood of cases against mosques and dargahs, which are ultimately becoming a cause of communal unrest. Justice Chandrachud went against the Ayodhya judgment in which he himself was a judge. The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 was discussed in detail in the Ayodhya judgment, in which it was said that this law reflects the intention of Parliament because it – prohibits the conversion of any place of worship and provides for the maintenance of the character of any place of worship, as it existed on 15 August 1947. The Ayodhya judgment said that the only exemption from the application of the provisions of the Places of Worship Act was for the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid. The bench referred to Section 6 of the Act in this judgment, which provides for punishment for attempting or abetting the violation of the provisions of ‘Prohibition of Conversion of Places of Worship’. The judgment said that the Act imposes two irrevocable and mandatory criteria – first, the conversion of a place of worship shall be prohibited and second, the religious character of every place of worship shall be preserved. The Act makes provision for reducing the number of lawsuits and legal proceedings to achieve this objective and at the same time, the Places of Worship Act also prohibits the institution of new lawsuits and legal proceedings.
The intentions of the Parliament of India have also been mentioned in the Ayodhya judgment. In which, referring to the explanation given by Union Home Minister Shankar Rao Chavan in the Lok Sabha, it has been said that we see this Bill as a measure to provide and develop our glorious traditions of love, peace and harmony. These traditions are part of the cultural heritage of which every Indian is proud. Tolerance towards all religions has been a hallmark of our great civilization since time immemorial. These traditions of unity, harmony and mutual respect came under serious strain during the pre-independence period, when the colonial rule actively sought to create and promote communal divisions in the country. After independence, we have started healing the wounds of the past and have tried to restore the old glory of our traditions of communal unity and harmony. We have been somewhat successful, although it must be admitted that there have also been some unfortunate failures. Instead of being discouraged by such failures, it is our duty and our commitment to learn lessons from them for the future.
The purpose of the Places of Worship Act in the Ayodhya verdict is not to create new controversies and to raise old controversies, which the people have forgotten. The verdict said that the Places of Worship Act, passed by Parliament in 1991, protects and safeguards the fundamental values of the Constitution. The country has implemented its constitutional obligations to uphold the equality of all religions and secularism by enacting laws, which are part of the fundamental features of the Constitution. The Places of Worship Act implements an irrevocable obligation to implement our commitment to secularism under the Indian Constitution. Therefore, this Act is a legislative instrument designed to protect the secular nature of Indian polity, which is one of the fundamental features of the Constitution. Which is one of the fundamental features of the fundamental constitutional principles.
The main component of which is secularism. Thus, the Places of Worship Act is a legislative intervention, which preserves our secular values as an essential feature.
The Ayodhya judgment has upheld ‘secularism as a constitutional value’, citing the judgment of a 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the case of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India. It has been said that the law of places of worship is intrinsically linked to the obligations of a secular state, which reflects India’s commitment to equality of all religions. Above all, the Places of Worship Act confirms a serious duty, which was enacted to secure the equality of all religions in the country as an essential constitutional value. This criterion has the status of being a fundamental feature of the Constitution, which is one of the objectives of the implementation of the law of places of worship. The Ayodhya case verdict said that this law speaks about our history and the future of the country, we are aware of our history and the challenges faced by the country and independence was an important moment to heal the wounds of the past. Historical wrongs cannot be corrected by the people by taking the law into their own hands. It also said that history and its wrongs will not be used to oppress the people in the present and future.
