Gyanvapi order: The law cannot resolve vexed religious issues

Source: The post is based on an article “Gyanvapi order: The law cannot resolve vexed religious issues” published in The Indian Express on 13^th September 2022.

Syllabus: GS 2                           

Relevance: governance and issues arising out of it

News: The district judge of Varanasi in Rakhi Sing & others has ordered that the petition by the five Hindu women is maintainable under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) of 1908.

District judge dismissed the mosque committee’s objections which were on the grounds that it is barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, the Waqf Act 1995 and the UP Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983.

What is the current ruling of the district court of Varanasi in Gyanvapi mosque?

The judge has noted that the petitioners are seeking neither the conversion of the Gyanvapi mosque into a temple nor making any claim to ownership.

They are merely seeking a right to worship as a civil right.

The deities are being worshipped constantly till 1993 and after 1993 till now once in a year under the regulation of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, the bar set by the Places of Worship Act 1991 is not applicable.

The constitutionality of Places of Worship Act, 1991 is currently under review in the Supreme Court.

The court has held that the entry of the property as waqf in the revenue records as per law does not create ownership rights.

The Masjid Anjuman Committee’s objections on the maintainability under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC have been rejected.

What is the Places of Worship Act, 1991 and judgments associated to it?

It was passed when the Ram temple movement was at its peak.

The intention behind this law was to maintain the religious character of places of worship as it was on August 15, 1947.  However, the law exempted the ongoing Babri Masjid dispute from its purview.

The five-judge bench of SC has said that this law promotes secularism which is the basic structure of the Constitution.

The bench also stated that non-retrogression is the fundamental principle of our constitutional law. Further, the court said that historical wrongs cannot be corrected by moving to courts.

Justice D Y Chandrachud has held that the Places of Worship Act, 1991 prohibits the conversion of the place but it does not prohibit ascertainment of the places of worship.

He further said that even the destruction of the deity’s property does not change the property’s character. The effect is that a temple remains a temple even after demolition.

What can be possible solutions to the Gayanvapi mosque?

A law cannot be a solution to social and religious problems. Laws are constantly changed or repealed. Thus, excessive reliance on Places of Worship Act is not correct.

First, in a court, there is only one winner but there is always room for both parties in arbitration, mediation, and out-of-court settlements. Therefore, a third mediator could be adopted so that both parties get benefits.

Second, Multi-faith prayer rooms are quite common at Western airports therefore it is possible to create a separate room for these women prayers in the mosque.