rewrite this content and keep HTML tags
Despite this, the growing acceptance of surveys to determine the religious character of places of worship poses significant risks to the fundamental principles of the Act. After the Gyanvapi case, challenges have emerged questioning the religious identity of various sites.
For example, the Mathura District Court has considered a petition alleging the presence of Hindu ‘artefacts’ in the Shahi Idgah Mosque. Similarly, in Karnataka, the Narendra Modi Vichar Manch has sought permission to offer prayers inside a mosque in Srirangapatna, claiming that it was constructed over a Hanuman temple during the rule of Tipu Sultan. These cases, among others, often rely on ‘surveying’, thereby undermining the clarity and authority of the Supreme Court’s findings in the Ayodhya verdict.
The delicate balance struck in the Ayodhya verdict, which clearly stated that the Act reflects India’s commitment to equality of all religions, should not be lost in the wave of local court orders that allow surveys and such prosecutions. without considering their sustainability. Limit.
As the Supreme Court prepares to decide on the constitutional validity of the Act, it should also take into account the broader implications of these cases on the constitutional vision of the rule of law and religious harmony. Judicial restraint and adherence to the principles enshrined in the Places of Worship Act are essential to ensure that historical grievances are not weaponized to disrupt the social fabric of the nation. Unless the Supreme Court intervenes decisively, the objectives of the Act and the secular character of the nation will face an uncertain and uncertain future.
(Arib Uddin Ahmed is an advocate practicing at Allahabad High Court. He writes on various legal developments. This is an opinion and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them .)
