Centre has no right to enact laws related to Places of Worship : SC Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay

New Delhi – Many things have become clear in the survey and video shooting of the Gyanvapi Mosque which was built after demolishing Shri Kashi Vishweshwar Temple in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. After a Shivaling, Idols of Hindu Deities, Sheshanag, lotus and symbols of Hindu ideology were found on the walls in this Mosque, it has become certain that a temple existed there.

However, taking unwarranted advantage of the ‘Places of worship Act, 1991’, Muslims are trying to suppress the findings. BJP leader Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, practising in the Supreme Court, stated that the Centre had no right to pass such an Act.

This law had been passed under the pretext of maintaining public law and order. In fact, it is the duty of the State to maintain law and order. Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay has also lodged an intervention petition in the Supreme Court.

Advocate Ashwini Upadyay has challenged the ‘Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991’ passed under the leadership of the then Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao after having demolished the Babri structure, saying that the said law violated the Indian Constitution.
The provisions of this Act state that religious places in India should be maintained as they were on 15^th August 1947 for preventing Hindus from claiming their right over the places where mosques had been built by demolishing Hindu temples.

Advocate Ashwini Upadyay said further,

1. According to the Hindu law, a temple will always remain a temple till the Idol in the temple is not immersed, even if every brick of the temple is removed. The Islamic law states that the land on which a mosque is to be built should be owned or bought from someone or received in charity. The first brick to be used in building a mosque should be in the name of the mosque. Hence, it is pretty clear that a mosque cannot be built on any other religious place.

2. His petition submitted in the Supreme Court says that the ‘Places of worship Act, 1991’ prevents Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs from approaching a Court against unjustified encroachment on their respective places of worship. This is in absolute violation of Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, 29 and 49 of the Indian Constitution.

3. Judicial reviews are the basic structure of the Constitution, and the law regarding ‘Places of worship’ destroys this basic structure.

4. Judicial reviews are a part of the 14th Article of the Constitution. Hindu Deities are righteous too. They also have constitutional rights. They have a right to property. Discriminating between Ram and Krushna through the Act violates Article 14; because ‘Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991’ says that the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya does not come under its purview; but Shrikrushna Mandir in Mathura does ! This discriminates between Shriram and Shrikrushna.

5. Article 15 of the Constitution says that the land of a Hindu temple or Math belongs to the Deity installed there. Once it is offered to the Deity of the temple, it remains in the Deity’s Name forever. No one can take it away. The administration of the temple can manage temple property; but is does not have ownership of the temple. Therefore, no priest or Mahatma (Spiritually evolved) is authorised to sell temple land.

6. Approaching a Court, arguing the case and getting justice comes under ‘Right to justice’ of the Article 21. The ‘Places of Worship Act’ closes the door to approach a Court, which violates Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Brief History of ‘Places of worship Act, 1991’

The year was 1991, the peak of Ram Janmabhoomi movement. The country had seen communal riots in Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka and Andhra some months ago, leaving scores dead and PV Narasimha Rao was the Prime Minister.

It was then that the Rao Government introduced a law in an effort to put a lid on any future controversy arising out of the ownership and character of any place of worship in the country. This was introduced to prevent another Ram Janmabhoomi movement kind of controversy from erupting. The Babri mosque in Ayodhya was razed a year later.

While introducing the Bill in Parliament, the then Home Minister SB Chavan had said that it will effectively prevent any new controversies from arising in respect of conversion of any place of worship.

The Bill had met with vehement opposition from the BJP in Parliament.

While referring to Kashi Vishwanath Temple-Gyanvapi mosque dispute, Uma Bharti had then asked, “Was not the intention of Aurangzeb behind leaving remnants of the temple at the site of mosque, to keep reminding Hindus of their historical fate and to remind the coming generations of Muslims of their past glory and power ?”

Editorial Viewpoint

• Enacting a law to prevent Hindus from getting possession of the temples captured by Islamic attackers illustrates the Hindu-hatred of the Congress.
• Hindus expect the BJP Government to take steps to withdraw the anti-Hindu law passed by the Congress.
• Article 15 of the Constitution says that the land of a Hindu temple or Math belongs to the Deity installed there forever !