Supreme Court Rejects Plea Challenging Places of Worship Act”

Why in News: The decision responds to ongoing debates over historical religious site disputes, fueled by political campaigns ahead of state elections. It reinforces the judiciary’s stance post the 2019 Ayodhya verdict, addressing communal tensions.

Why Important:

Prelims: Key facts—Places of Worship Act (1991), its provisions (maintaining religious status as of August 15, 1947), secularism, and landmark judgments.

Mains: GS-II – Crucial for analyzing the judiciary’s role in upholding secularism and resolving socio-political conflicts (e.g., “Examine the significance of the Places of Worship Act in India’s secular polity”). Ties into constitutional principles (Articles 25-28) and governance challenges.

Key Points of the News:

Judicial Decision:

• On March 22, 2025, the Supreme Court rejected a plea challenging the Places of Worship Act, upholding its legality and relevance.
• The bench likely emphasized that the Act is a cornerstone of India’s secular framework, preventing retrospective claims on religious sites.

Places of Worship Act, 1991:

• Enacted on September 11, 1991, the Act mandates that the religious character of a place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947, must be preserved, barring any legal suits to change it.
• Exception: The Act excluded the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute, resolved in 2019.

Court’s Reasoning:

• The Supreme Court reiterated the Act’s role in maintaining communal harmony and preventing historical grievances from disrupting social stability.
• It aligned the Act with constitutional principles of secularism (Articles 25-28), stating it ensures equality among religious communities.

Context of the Plea:

• The petition likely sought to reopen claims on sites like the Gyanvapi Mosque (Varanasi) or Krishna Janmabhoomi (Mathura), arguing that the Act restricts judicial review or historical rectification.
• The court dismissed this, reinforcing its 2019 Ayodhya judgment stance that the Act applies universally to avoid endless litigation.

Timing and Relevance:

• The ruling coincides with ongoing political campaigns leveraging religious site disputes ahead of state elections in 2025, reflecting attempts to polarize voters.
• It underscores the judiciary’s effort to uphold constitutional values over populist pressures.