NyaThe judiciary plays an important role in resolving disputes over religious places while protecting the principles of secularism, equality and justice enshrined in the Indian Constitution. However, the task is fraught with challenges such as balancing historical claims with contemporary rights, maintaining public order, addressing emotional sensitivities and ensuring adherence to legal frameworks such as the Places of Worship Act, 1991. These complexities demand a careful and impartial approach to upholding constitutional values. If you want to destroy a country then destroy its cultural identity. The country will destroy itself. This is what the foreign invaders who attacked India did. The Islamic invaders not only looted the wealth but also demolished temples and religious places on a large scale and built mosques to destroy the cultural and religious identity of India. The aim of the British was also to weaken India and exploit its resources. Therefore, they also made every possible effort to weaken the cultural identity of India.
The religious places destroyed by the invaders are not just religious symbols. As an ancient civilization, India's identity is not complete without them. Ayodhya, Kashi and Mathura are some examples of this. Today, after hundreds of years of slavery, Sanatan culture is being revived. Efforts are being made to recover the symbols of India's cultural identity on the basis of evidence and documents in the Kashi, Mathura, Sambhal and Ajmer Dargah cases. Challenges faced by the judiciary in addressing disputes over religious sites include ambiguity in the legal framework. Although the Places of Worship Act, 1991 aims to stabilize the 1947 status of places of worship, its provisions leave room for varying interpretations, making its enforcement weak.
The Allahabad High Court allowed lawsuits like the Gyanvapi Masjid case in 2022, interpreting the Act as allowing surveys to determine religious character. Revisiting ageold grievances risks escalating communal tensions, disrupting public order and damaging social unity. Judicial decisions in religious disputes often become tools of political mobilization, challenging the ability of the judiciary to maintain neutrality. Balancing religious rights with the secular character of the Constitution is a significant challenge, especially when decisions are considered to favor a community.
Allowing cases involving disputed religious places undermines the basic principle of the Act, setting a precedent for future conflicts over places of worship. There is an urgent need to ensure adherence to constitutional principles and protection of secularism. The judiciary often balances competing religious claims to maintain the secular character of the Constitution (Articles 2528).
For example: S.R. In Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court declared secularism a fundamental feature of the Constitution, which strengthened the impartiality of the state in religious matters. It ensures that religious freedom (Article 25) does not violate the rights of others or public order. Courts examine disputes over religious sites through historical records and evidence, focusing on constitutional principles over religious sentiments.
In the Ayodhya dispute (M. Siddique vs. Mahant Suresh Das, 2019), the Supreme Court relied on historical and archaeological evidence to deliver a balanced judgment while allotting alternative land to the affected party to maintain fairness. The judiciary protects religious structures recognized as cultural or heritage sites while ensuring constitutional compliance. In Aruna Roy v. Union of India (2002) the Court emphasized the promotion of holistic culture under Article 51A(f), which is relevant in disputes over heritage religious sites.
Courts adjudicate religious disputes with procedural fairness, ensuring that all parties are heard without prejudice. In the Gyanvapi MasjidKashi Vishwanath Temple dispute, the judiciary has laid emphasis on procedural compliance in the collection and assessment of evidence, thereby ensuring the principles of fair trial. The judiciary should act as the guardian of the Constitution in resolving disputes over religious places, ensuring that secularism and communal harmony remain paramount.
By strengthening the principles of the Places of Worship Act, delivering timely and impartial judgments and promoting conflict resolution mechanisms, the judiciary can build public confidence and prevent historical grievances from disrupting social peace. A futureoriented vision that protects the secular fabric of India is important for maintaining unity in its diverse, pluralistic society.
– .
Image Credit: KhasKhabar.