Закреплённый твит
On Places of Worship Act 🧵:
Even though the Sambhal Structure does qualify as an exception under Section 4(3) of the Act, the PoW Act itself suffers from serious constitutional infirmities that render it ultra vires the constitution :
1. To begin with, the law treats religious property disputes differently from other civil matters, creating an unreasonable classification that denies affected parties equal access to justice.
This denial of equal access to justice violates not just Article 14 but also violates Article 21; access to justice has been held to be a fundamental right under Article 21 on numerous occasions by the Supreme Court.
The Act's blanket prohibition on converting places of worship infringes upon religious freedom guaranteed under Article 25. While the state can impose reasonable restrictions on religious practices, the Act's absolute bar on addressing historical grievances through the judicial process is disproportionate.
2. The Act arbitrarily excludes the birthplace of Prabhu Shri Ram from its purview while including the birthplace of Shri Krishna, despite both being revered as incarnations of Bhagwan Vishnu and worshipped equally among Hindus. This selective treatment lacks any rational basis, rendering the 1991 Act arbitrary and irrational. Two religious sites, both equally revered in Hinduism, are treated differently under the Act without a clear or rational explanation.
How can a law draw an arbitrary distinction between the birthplaces of Shri Ram and Shri Krishna ?
3. The Act's arbitrary selection of August 15, 1947, as a cut-off date creates an arbitrary classification in religious property disputes without a rational nexus to its stated objective of maintaining communal harmony.
This classification effectively denies legal remedies to parties with legitimate grievances, violating the principle of equality before the law under Article 14.
4. An argument that the defenders of the Act often come up with is that the Supreme Court praised the law in Ayodhya Judgment. The Supreme Court never examined its constitutionality since it was not under challenge. So any observation made when the constitutionality was not under challenge (obiter dicta) will have no bearing while deciding the constitutionality of an act.
Though the Act is presently under challenge before the Supreme Court, a constitution bench is yet to be constituted to hear the matter. We do not even need to wait for the SC to determine its constitutionality; the Parliament must repeal the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The repeal of the act is inevitable; it must be done sooner than later.
A law that violates my fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 21, 25 and 26 of the constitution must not exist.
The constitutional goal of social harmony would be better served through regulated judicial processes rather than an outright ban on dispute resolution. You cannot arbitrarily deny access to justice without providing any alternative legal recourse.
English
