The Worship Act 1991 vs. India

Author: Prerna Sinha, O.P Jindal Global University.

Laws are made for the sake of the country, for securing people’s rights, to  promote equality. But is that statement always true? Not always. One of the prominent  examples proving my statement is the Worship act 1991. This act proves how the laws are not  always used “for the country” but also used “against the country”. Over the years the Act has  faced constitutional challenges with critics arguing that it infringes upon fundamental rights  such as equality (Article 14) and religious freedom (Article 25) enshrined in the Indian  Constitution. Misleading belief to religion always used as a tool by the people in power to  rule over the country. This article critically examines the objectives, legal provisions and  constitutional challenges to the Act, highlighting how in the name of safeguarding the  religious beliefs it's actually exaggerated the borders within the communities. 

Worship Act 1991, temple destruction, historical invasions, mosque construction, Islamic inscriptions.

First what struck in our mind is how and the worship act 1991 made its place in the laws of  India. As we know India was invaded by various powers throughout its long history. Some of  the significant invasions were by Mughals, Turks and Arabs, with their intention of spreading  and glorifying Islam on the cost of vandalizing Hindu temples. Numerous inscriptions found  at Islamic locations throughout the nation quote the Quran and invoke Allah and the Prophet.  These inscriptions include information on who built these structures, how they were built,  and when. Scholarly Muslim epigraphists have decoded the inscriptions and linked them to  their historical context. The Archaeological Survey of India published them in its yearly  Epigraphia Indica–Arabic and Persian Supplement, which was originally published as  Epigraphia Indo-Moslemica in 1907–08. 

Arun Shourie wrote an article on February 5, 1989, on Maulana Hakeem Sayid Abdul Hai, a  prominent and well-known individual. He authored multiple publications, one of which included the 17-page chapter "Hindustan ki Masjiden," or "The Mosques of India." Shourie  said that brief summaries of mosques were included in the chapter. Hai gave a brief account  of how Hindu temples were destroyed to make way for mosques, but those were merely  descriptions. The Babri Mosque, for instance, was built by Babar at Ayodhya, which Hindus  refer to as the birthplace of Ram Chander Ji. His wife, Sita, is the subject of a well-known  tale. It is said that Sita had a temple here in which she lived and cooked food for her husband.  On that very site, Babar constructed this mosque in H. 963.” Here H 963 means Hijri  Calendar year 963, which converts to the year 1555-1556 of the English Calendari.  

Kashi Vishwanath Temple (Varanasi), one of the most sacred sites for Hindus, was  repeatedly targeted and destroyed by Mughal forces over the centuries. It was even  documented in various historical records and accounts of the Mughal invasions of India,  particularly during the reigns of rulers like Aurangzeb.

Somnath Temple (Gujarat), known for its magnificent architecture and spiritual  significance, was sacked and plundered by Mahmud of Ghazni, a Turkic ruler who invaded  India in the 11th century. It was occurred during his multiple invasions of the Indian  subcontinent in the 11th century 

Ganpatyar Temple (Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir), dedicated to Lord Ganesha, faced  destruction at the hands of Ahmad Shah Durrani, the founder of the Durrani Empire, in 1765  AD. Ahmad Shah's invasion of India saw the looting and destruction of many Hindu temples,  including the Ganpatyar Temple.  

Jama Masjid (Delhi), one of the largest mosques in India, was built using materials from  demolished Hindu and Jain temples. It was noted in historical records and accounts of the  construction of the mosque during the Mughal era. 

Similar to this , In Andhra Pradesh the material collected after demolishing temples was used  in constructing mosques, dargah, gateways and forts. 142 sites were recognized by the author  from Andhra Pradesh alone, including Jami Masjid in Kadiri, Anantapur, Sher Khan Masjid in  district Penukonda, Babayya Dargah In Penukonda, that was built by converting Ivara Temple, Idgah in Tadipatri, Datgiri Dargan in Gundlakunta, Datgir Swami Dargah built over Jangam  temple in Jangalapalli and others. The Dargah of Mumin Chup in Aliabad, Hyderabad, dates  back to 1322, and it was built on a temple site. Similarly, Jami Masjid in Rajahmundry was  built in 1324 by converting Venugopalaswamy Temple. The destruction of temples continued  in Andhra Pradesh for centuries. Gachinala Masjid, built-in 1729 was noted as the latest  mosque in the state. It stands on a temple site. 

In Assam, the book noted two temple sites that were converted into mosques that were Poa  Mosque and Mazar of Sultan Ghiyasuddin Balban. Both Islamic structures stood on temple  sites in Hajo, district Kamrup. 

In West Bengal 102 sites where the mosques, dargahs, muslim structures, and forts were  built on demolished Temple sites or material collected after destroying temples was used.  These structures include Ghazi Ismail Mazar in Lokpura, which was built over Venugopala  temple, Makhdum Shah Dargah in Birbhum Siyan, where temple materials were used, Sayyid  Shah Shahid Mahmud Bahmani Dargah in Suata was built using Buddhist temple material,  Alaud-Din Alaul Haqq Masjid built-in 1342 in Bania Pukur used temple material and others.  A Muslim city was built in Gaur using the ruins of Lakshma Navati, a Hindu capital  destroyed by Muslims towards the end of the twelfth century AD. Multiple Muslim structures  including Chhoti Sona Masjid, Tantipara Masjid, Lattan Masjid, Makhadum Akhi Siraj  Chishti Dargah, Chamkatti Masjid, Chandipur Darwaza and other structures were built over  two centuries at the city using temple material. 

In Bihar, 77 sites were recognized where Mosques, Muslim structures, Forts, etc. were made  on Temple sites and/or using material collected from destroyed Temple sites. In Bhagalpur,  the Dargah of Hazrat Shahbaz was built in 1502 on a Temple site. Similarly, in Champanagar,  several Mazars were constructed on the ruins of Jain Temples. The Muslim Graveyard in  Amoljhori, district Monghyr stands on a Vishnu Temple site. In Gaya, Shahi MAsjid in  Nadarganj was built in 1617 on a Temple site. In the Nalanda district, Biharsharif, the Muslim 

The capital was built after destroying Udandapura, a famous Buddhist Vihara. Majority of the  Muslim structures built on the site used Temple material, including the Dargah of  Makhdumul Mulk Sharifuddin of 1380, Bada Dargah, Chhota Dargah, and others. In Patna,  the Dargah of Shah Jumman Madariyya was built on a temple site. Dargah of Shah Mur Mansur,  Dargah of Shah Arzani, Dargah of Pir Damariya and others were built on Buddhist Viharas. 

In Delhi a total of 72 sites were recognized. The Islamic invaders destroyed Indrapat and  Dhillika along with their suburbs to build seven cities. Temple materials were used in many  monuments, mosques, mazars, and other structures, including Qutub Minar, Quwwatul Islam  Masjid (1198), Maqbara of Shamsud-Din Iltutmish, Jahaz Mahal, Alal Darwaza, Alal Minar,  Madrasa and Maqbara of Alaud-Din Khalji, Madhi Masjid and more 

In Gujarat, 170 sites were recognized. Temples at Asaval, Patan and Chandravati were  destroyed, and the material was used to build Ahmedabad, a Muslim city. Some of the  monuments that used Temple material in Ahmedabad were Palace and Citadel of Bhadra,  Jami Masjid of Ahmad Shah, Haibit Khan ki Masjid, Rani Rupmati Ki Masjid and more. In  district Dholka, Masjid and Mazar of Bahlol Khan Ghazi and Mazar of Barkat Shahid were  built on Temple sites. Similarly, in Sarkhej, the Dargah of Shaikh Ahmad Khattu Ganj Baksh  was built in 1445 using Temple material. In 1321, Jami Masjid was built using materials after  demolition of Hindu and Jain temple sites in Bharuch. In Bhavnagar, the Mazar of Pir Amir  Khan in Botad was built at a Temple site. In 1473, a Masjid was built in Dwarka at a Temple  site. In Bhuj, Jami Masjid and Gumbad of Baba Guru were built on Temple sites. Jains were  expelled from Rander and the temples were converted into mosques. Some of the examples  include Jami Masjid, Nit Nauri Masjid, Mian Ki Masjid, Kharwa Masjid and others. In  Somnath Patan, Bazar Masjid, Chandni Masjid and Qazi Ki Masjid were built on Temple  sites. 

In Haryana a total of 77 sites were recognized by historians. In Pinjore, Ambala, Temple  materials were used to build the Garden of Fidai Khan. Fidai Khan Garden, which was later  renovated by a Sikh Emperor and popular by the name Yadavindra Gardens or Pinjore  Gardens, was built using Temple materials. In Faridabad, Jami Masjid was built in 1605 at a  Temple site. In Nuh, a Mosque was built in 1392 using Temple materials. Mosques in Bawal  and Jami Masjid in Farrukhnagar, district Gurugram, were built on Temple sites. In Kaithal,  Dargah of Shaikh Salahud-Din Abul Muhammad of Balkh was built in 1246 using Temple  materials. Madrasa on the Tila in Kurukshetra and Kali Masjid in Jhajjar were built on  Temple sites. Hisar was built by Firuz Shah Tughlaq using Temple materials brought from  Agroha. The city of Agroha was built by Maharaja Agrasen, a descendant of Bhagwan Ram’s  son Kush. Maharaja Agrasen was born in the 35th generation after Bhagwan Ram. The city  was destroyed by Muhammad Ghauri in 1192. 

In Himachal Pradesh the Jahangiri Gate was built using Temple materials.ii 

These accounts clearly show us the intentional intervention in the religious beliefs done by  the invaders in order to promote their religion and their control over the land. Another  observation which can be made for the destruction of temples is that during the early era mosques were politically inactive; their destruction would not have any effect on the reign that  patronized them. Contrastingly Hindu temples were highly political in nature and their  destruction was a way of filling up the treasure of the invaders. Destruction of the temples  was not religious in nature but rather political. These incidents were enough for the  legislature to introduced the post-independent India with the Worship Act 1991 The worship act 1991 states “An Act to prohibit conversion of any place of worship and to  provide for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on  the 15th day of August, 1947, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto”. 

Section 3 “Prohibition of Conversion” which prevents the conversion of a place of worship,  whether in full or part, from one religious denomination to another or within the same  denomination  

Section 4(1) “Maintenance of Religious Character” which ensures that the religious identity  of a place of worship remains the same as it was on August 15, 1947 

Section 4 (2) “Abatement of Pending case” declare that any ongoing legal proceedings  concerning the conversion of a place of worship’s religious character before August 15, 1947  will be terminated and no new cases be initiated  

Exceptions to the Act (Section 5): The Act does not apply to ancient and historical  monuments, archaeological sites, and remains covered by the Ancient Monuments and  Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. It also excludes cases that have already been  settled or resolved and disputes that have been resolved by mutual agreement or conversions  that occurred before the Act came into effect. The Act does not extend to the specific place of  worship known as Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, including any legal  proceedings associated with it.

The recent Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid, Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal and Ajmer  Sharif shrine disputes, has brought the Places of Worship Act 1991, back into national focus.  Recently the judgement of the 2019 Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya dispute and the  inauguration of Ram Mandir on 22nd January 2024 has sparked a debate all over the country on the issues of Whether Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Places of Worship Act 1991, violate  Articles 14 and 15 and the guarantee of equality in the Constitution? Whether Sections 2, 3,  and 4 violate Articles 25, 26, and 29 and the basic feature of secularism in the Constitution?  Whether temples ‘destroyed by invaders’ remain temples under Hindu and Islamic personal  law? 

But if we analyze the entire situation it leads us to the question of whether there was any need  for such an act? Is this act securing the beliefs or are being misused by our political leaders to  deepen the religious boundaries within the citizens of India. Does this act internally  damage the unity of our country? 

The Ayodhya judgment which was supposed to be an action ensuring the safeguard of  religion, has on the contrary led to further protests and issues demanding for the demolition  of mosques claiming it to be built by destroying temples. The Gyanvapi mosque – Kashi  Vishwanath dispute, Mathura’s Sahi Idagh dispute, Sambhal dispute and Ajmer Sharif shrine  disputes are some of the prominent examples. This reverberates the fundamental derogatory idea and Pandora's box that may be opened through such actions and in slogans such as  ‘Ayodhya to sirf jhank ihai, Kashi, Mathura baaki hai’. (Ayodhya is just the beginning; Kashi  and Mathura still remain). Varanasi Court’s recent order to carry out a comprehensive survey  by the Archaeological Survey of India of the Gyanvapi mosque complex and a Civil Court in  Mathura to hear dispute related to Krishna Janmabhoomi on 1st July 2023 threatens to turn  the clock back and inflict new wounds. Recent Judgements (either The Ayodhya judgment or  the Gyanvapi judgement initiating the conduct of survey) acts as prominent evidence  declining the need of this act. 

The divide of religion has always been the easiest way of filling up the vote banks. No  political rally is complete without deepening the scar of religious divide. This act seems  more like a political move for ensuring vote banks. 

Using communal violence for politics promotes the message of religious divide within the  country in front of the world. Current scenarios explain how this act hasn’t reduced  communal tension but have exaggerated the difference within the communities. 

This act had been found to prevent an important concept of judicial review which in a way  blocks the way to justice for a large community as well as hurting their sentiments. By  preventing the judicial review the act also diminishes the role of courts to follow the act  rather than providing justice.  By looking at the above records we can say that this act is not seen to protect the  belief but to protect vote-bank politics. 

Also in my opinion religion must be a source of belief used for gaining  confidence in ourselves, it must be an approach for making people believe in positive energy  which is guiding and protecting us. But here religion is politicized and has been projected in  a very problematic way throughout many years. It has been intentionally used by the political  leaders for raising their vote banks. Even though the invaders left India centuries ago, their  tool of “divide and rule” is still being used by today’s leaders in expanding their power on  the cost of caging India’s growth and development. The demolition of India’s unity has  always been a political leader’s agenda for which they use many tools and religion is one of the  important tools in doing so. But how long should this continue? For how long the people of  India. This is the time for removing the cover of religion from our eyes which is not letting us progress. It’s time for the people of India to fight as the citizens of independent India if  they don’t want again to be enslaved and for this time by our political leaders itself. 

1. Just a moment..., http://www.opindia.com/2022/05/sita-ram-goel-book-list-of-mosques-dargahs-built-over hindu-jain-buddhist-temples-india/.   

2. Dinesh says:, Hindu temples under Islamic occupation, #ReclaimTemples (Nov. 16, 2019),  https://reclaimtemples.com/hindu-temples-under-islamic-occupation/. 

3. Ayodhya Title Dispute 2019 ( Babri Masjid -Ram Janmabhoomi case) 

4. Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi v Rakhi Singh (Gyanvapi Case) v EATON, RICHARD M. “TEMPLE DESECRATION AND INDO-MUSLIM STATES.” Journal of Islamic Studies, vol. 11,  no. 3, 2000, pp. 283–319. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26198197. 

5. (May 27, 1991), http://www.theweek.in/theweek/current/2022/05/27/questions-are-now-being-raised about-the-legality-of-the-places-of-worship-act-1991/. 

6. The Places of Worship Act, 1991, (July 14, 2023), https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news analysis/the-places-of-worship-act-1991. 

7. Satya Prakash, Understanding the Places of Worship Act, 1991: Key provisions and implications, The Tribune  (Dec. 7, 2024), https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/india/understanding-the-places-of-worship-act-1991-key provisions-and-implications/. 

8. 88 Post, The Places of Worship Act 1991- Most Controversial Law in India, (Feb. 27, 2024),  https://blog.finology.in/Legal-news/palces-of-worship-act-1991. 

9. ClearIAS Team, The Places of Worship Act, 1991, ClearIAS (Oct. 14, 2022), https://www.clearias.com/places of-worship-act-1991/. 

10. Sneha Mahawar, Place of Worship Act, 1991 - iPleaders, IPleaders (Nov. 20, 2022),  https://blog.ipleaders.in/place-of-worship-act-1991/.