SC direction on Worship Act balances secularism and Hindutva narratives

The PWA is the most succinct of laws, consisting of just eight sections, leaving no room for interpretation.

- OLAV ALBUQUERQUE

The Supreme Court has rightly directed that no new suits will be entertained pertaining to mosques allegedly built over temples in centuries past or disputes over other places of worship, ensuring that the aim of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act (PWA), 1991, is not defeated by a questionable interpretation of the former CJI Dhananjaya Chandrachud-led bench, which opined that "ascertaining the character of a place of worship" was not barred. Eighteen petitions will be frozen until the government files its response after four weeks to a plea seeking to invalidate this law.

The PWA is the most succinct of laws, consisting of just eight sections, leaving no room for interpretation. There are no ifs and buts, no notwithstanding clauses, nor "without prejudice to" phrases that allow judges to stretch its meaning. This makes it astounding that the Supreme Court, headed by the 50th CJI Dhananjaya Chandrachud, had not dismissed petitions filed with alleged oblique motives to weaken the aim and object of the PWA, which ensures that all places of worship preserve their character as of August 15, 1947.

Such petitions destroy the secular fabric of this country, making a mockery of the apex court upholding the words "secular" and "socialism" inserted into the preamble through the 42nd amendment of the Constitution in 1976. These petitions perpetuate disputes like that of Ayodhya, arguing that "barbaric invaders" had converted pre-existing temples into mosques. This was precisely why the PWA was enacted.