- 04 June | MGP Strategy Series | GS Paper 4 (Ethics) with AIR 7 A.R. Rajah Mohaideen Click Here to register for the session →
- 04 June | GS Advance Program begins from 4th June 2026 | First 2 classes open to all Click Here to register for the event →
- 05 June | MGP Strategy Series | GS Paper 3 Strategy Session with AIR 406 Mannat Luthra Click Here to register for the session
- 06 June | Open Orientation on Essay Guidance Program (EGP 2026) Click Here to register →
- 07 June | Open Orientation for Current Affairs for Mains 2026 Click Here to register →
- 07 June | Sociology Optional Strategy Session with AIR 10 Ujjwal Priyank Click Here to register →
Source: The post is based on the article “Religious character of a place of worship can be decided only in a trial, says Allahabad HC” published in “The Hindu” on 20th December 2023
Why in the News?
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the Places of Worship Act, 1991 does not prevent lawsuits seeking to determine the religious character of a place of worship or to reclaim a place of worship.
What is the case about?
1) A petition was filed in 1991 seeking the restoration of a temple where the Gyanvapi mosque now exists (in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh).
2) Against this, several petitions were filed in the Allahabad High Court by the Gyanvapi Mosque Committee and the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board.
2) The petitioners argued that the 1991 lawsuit was not maintainable as it was barred by The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.
What did the High Court rule on this?
1) Lawsuit maintainable: The Court dismissed the petition and ruled that the lawsuit is not barred by the Places of Religious Worship Act, 1991
2) 1991 Act not an absolute bar: The Court ruled that the Act isn’t an absolute barrier to seeking legal recourse regarding the religious character of a place of worship.
3) Religious character undefined: The Act does not define “religious character,” leaving it to the courts to determine on a case-by-case basis through evidence.
4) Challenging conversions that took place before the Act: The court also held that if the “conversion” of a religious place had taken place “much before” the commencement of the Act, relevant party could still move the court.
– In the Gyanvapi case, the Hindu petitioners said that the temple was brought down by the “Farman of Emperor Aurangzeb in the year 1669” which is much before the commencement of the 1991 Act.
