The Congress went to the Supreme Court on Thursday strongly endorsing the 1991 law that forbids one religion’s sites to be converted to another’s, arguing it had been enacted to protect communal harmony and secularism.

The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, passed under the Congress-led government of P.V. Narasimha Rao, “reflected the mandate of the Indian populace”, an intervention application moved through Congress general secretary K.C. Venugopal said.

The 1991 law stands as a bulwark against a flood of petitions before lower courts that seek a handover of the sites of several mosques and dargahs to Hindus on the claim that these had been built by demolishing temples.

Hindu petitioners led by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay have challenged the 1991 Act’s constitutionality, arguing that by restricting Hindus’ right to reclaim religious sites that were allegedly converted into those of another religion by force, it validates vandalism by invaders.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna is scheduled to hear this batch of petitions, along with intervention applications from various groups and individuals, on February 17.

Section 3 of the 1991 Act bars the conversion of any place of worship of any religious denomination or segment of it into a place of
worship for a different religious denomination or a different segment of the same denomination.

Section 4 mandates the preservation of the religious character of a place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947, with the sole exception of the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya.

The Congress’s application, moved through advocate Abishek Jebraj, argues that the Act “is essential to safeguard secularism in India
and the present challenge appears to be a motivated and malicious attempt to undermine established principles
of secularism”.

It expresses fear that any alterations to the 1991 Act “could jeopardise India’s communal harmony and secular fabric thereby threatening the sovereignty and integrity of the nation”.

Several other organisations such as the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, Indian Union Muslim League and the management committee of the Shahi Masjid Eidgah in Mathura besides several civil rights activists have also opposed the petitions challenging the 1991 law.

They have argued that the 1991 law was enacted with the avowed objectives of maintaining communal harmony and not allowing the past to destroy the country’s future.

The Congress’s petition has cited the five-judge constitution bench ruling of November 2019 that, while handing the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri site over to Hindus, defended the 1991 Act.

“The Places of Worship Act is intrinsically related to the obligations of a secular State. It reflects the commitment of India to the equality of all religions,” the 2019 judgment said.

“Above all, the Places of Worship Act is an affirmation of the solemn duty which was cast upon the State to preserve and protect the equality of all faiths as an essential constitutional value, a norm which has the status of being a basic feature of the Constitution. There is a purpose underlying the enactment of the Places of Worship Act….”

The Congress has argued that the petitions moved by Upadhyay and others have “oblique and questionable motives”, and that the 1991 law is key to furthering the freedom of religion.