HOW DO PLACES OF WORSHIP ACT OBSTRUCT CIVILISATIONAL JUSTICE? & WHY TEMPLES SHOULD BE BROUGHT BACK ?
Recently Supreme court said to seize the place where the shiva linga is found in the Gyan Vapi masjid as a result of a survey conducted by ASI In light of this issue many people are quoting the Places of worship act of 1991 which prohibits any change in the character of religious places as they existed on 15 August 1947 but The Ayodhya case was, however, kept outside the purview of the Act. In 2019, while pronouncing the Ayodhya judgement, the Supreme Court had referred to the Act and said that it “imposes a bar on the institution of fresh suits or legal proceedings”. The court in its verdict made several references to the Act, underlining its objective as stated in the law that it wanted to avoid further controversy by going into the disputes of the past. The apex court’s observation of the Act was taken as its approval of the legislation and was thought that it might prevent the lower courts from entertaining any fresh legal suits by which Hindus can't claim their worship places which were destroyed by colonisers. so the PoW act became a draconian act for the indigenous community to protect their sentiments & rights because it didn't consist of specific features that are needed to build a law like
ABSENCE OF CONSULTATION & AGAINST TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW & JUDICIAL REVIEW
The Places of Worship Act (“PoW”), 1991 is a legislation that was passed by the Narasimha Rao-led Congress government without any kind of consultation with the affected Indic communities. Was any study undertaken by the Law Commission at the behest of the then Government before the Act was passed? The answer is no. The Act was imposed on the affected communities without sufficient prior notice to the then Opposition which was led by the BJP so a consultation is absent before the law is passed.
This ACT Is against to DUE PROCESS OF LAW Because There was no credible discussion on the impact of the legislation on the rights of affected Indic communities under Article 25 of the Constitution on the other side other communities are benefited by having this legislation. The law has been Violating on the ground that it bars judicial review which is a basic feature of the Constitution, imposes an “arbitrary irrational retrospective cutoff date”, and abridges the right to religion of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs.The PoW Act unconstitutionally foreclosed the rights of such communities to approach the Courts for judicial redressal of continuing historical injustices. Therefore, on the face of it, the Act is unconstitutional and is liable to be struck down.
BUT WHY TEMPLES SHOULD BE BROUGHT BACK & THIS MAY CAUSE HAVOC IN SOCIETY?
The assumption that the issue of Temple Reclamation is limited to Kashi and Mathura after Ayodhya is factually and historically incorrect. After all, Temples were destroyed all over the country over a prolonged period. Shri Sitaram Goel and Shri Arun Shourie have written extensively on the subject, including how attempts were made to whitewash history ostensibly in the name of “secularism”. In his piece Hideaway Communalism, Shourie detailed the attempts by certain leading seminaries to hide primary sources which narrated and extolled the destruction of Temples in various parts of the country by colonizers and the motivation behind such destruction. In any case, no one can make concessions on behalf of affected Temples and communities since it is a matter of property rights as well as religious rights. As for where this will end, honestly, it will end with acknowledgement of the truth which will, hopefully, prevent history from being repeated and make temples glorify.
The question of fears of havoc in society is Similar to fears that were aired about Article 370. But the aftermath of the Ayodhya Verdict and the amendment to Article 370 have shown that Bharat can peacefully embrace historical justice. So, let’s put faith in the people and let Courts discharge their Constitutional duties without fear or favour because there is no institution made by courts and governments to resolve this kind of issue
So this is the main reason why civilisational justice has been impeding and the temple should be brought back indeed The law has been challenged on the ground that it bars judicial review which is a basic feature of the Constitution and imposes an “arbitrary irrational retrospective cutoff date”, and abridges the right to religion of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs. So constitution is only a key to eradicate this problem because In any case, as long as there is even a single person asserting her or his rights under Articles 25, 26 and 29, there is sufficient legal basis for reclamation. Fortunately, unlike other societies and cultures, Hindus are still alive and therefore are in a position to seek reclamation. No one can concede such rights on behalf of another and it is downright insensitive to expect people to give up the faith of their ancestors and the places of worship associated with such faith this is our responsibility to protect our culture, so In the interest of peace and assuming it is a two-way street, why can’t the occupiers/occupants give up such places and rebuild them at a different location? The Supreme Court has surely shown that such a solution is possible because Temples are places of worship whereas Mosques are places of prayer which is a critical theological distinction. Therefore, Temples can’t be moved, while others can be.
CH.J.V.K.Sathya Swaroop
