The judiciary should not be seen as legitimising recurring, communally motivated attempts to change the status of places of worship. In yet another order that may end up expediting the project of converting a mosque into a temple by indirect means, the Allahabad High Court has ruled that a set of suits filed in 1991 for a declaration that a part of the site of the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi as the property of Lord Vishweshwar is not barred by law. The court has decided, as it had done earlier on a 2022 suit by a group of Hindu worshippers, that the old suits are not barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which invalidates legal proceedings that may lead to altering the status of any place of worship as it stood on August 15, 1947. In what seems to be specious reasoning, the court has held that the Act is not applicable as the “religious character” of the structure is yet to be determined. In other words, instead of nipping the cunning piece of litigation in the bud, the court has allowed a full civil trial to decide whether the structure in the Gyanvapi compound is a mosque or a temple and stated that unless this status is determined based on evidence, it cannot be called a temple or a mosque. Such an approach may only end up driving modern society into a revanchist mindset seeking to avenge medieval depredations.
In the case of the 2022 suits by women worshippers, the court had noted that the proceedings were aimed at asserting a right to worship the deities on the mosque precincts, and not to convert it into a temple. However, the 1991 suits explicitly seek a declaration that the main part of the site is a mosque and also want the mosque administrators to remove all their religious effects. Despite this explicit relief being sought, the court has chosen to treat it as a suit that is maintainable and not barred by the Places of Worship Act. The order has also upheld the order for a survey of the premises by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), but asked for the ASI survey done on the basis of the 2022 suits for the purpose of deciding the 1991 suits also. It has provided for a further survey, if necessary. What is disconcerting in the High Court order is that it claims that the dispute raised in the case is “of vital national importance”. This is an astounding claim for a judicial institution to make while adjudicating litigation between two parties. The judiciary must stay committed to the constitutional vision of secularism and enforce the statutory bar on converting or reconverting the status of places of worship.
