Justice Nariman Warns of Growing Religious Site Litigation, Praises Ayodhya Verdict’s Secular Stance

Nariman criticizes Ayodhya verdict’s secularism

Justice Nariman Warns of Growing Religious Site Former Supreme Court judge, Justice R F Nariman, has expressed disappointment with the Ayodhya verdict, claiming that it did not uphold the principle of secularism. He criticized the judgment for not doing justice to secularism, specifically regarding the decision to grant the disputed land for the Ram Mandir despite acknowledging the illegal demolition of the Babri Masjid.

He emphasized that the Places of Worship Act, which was upheld in the 2019 verdict, should be strictly enforced to prevent escalating religious disputes, which he believes are causing communal tension across India. Nariman called for this law to be applied consistently in all courts to prevent further religious conflicts and ensure harmony, as he believes the rise in such cases is contrary to constitutional values.

Justice Nariman Warns of Growing Religious Site Former Supreme Court judge, Justice Rohinton F. Nariman, expressed concern over the growing number of legal cases involving religious sites, calling them “hydra heads” that could lead to communal tension. These cases, which now involve not only mosques but also dargahs, contradict the spirit of the Constitution and the Places of Worship Act, he said.

During a lecture for the Justice A M Ahmadi Foundation, Nariman emphasized that the 1991 Act freezes the religious character of places of worship as it stood on August 15, 1947. He argued that any attempts to alter this should result in the dismissal of lawsuits. The 2019 Ayodhya verdict, he noted, had reinforced this principle by dedicating five pages to the Act, clarifying that the law applies to all religious sites, except for Ayodhya, which was treated as a special case.

Nariman criticized the Ayodhya verdict’s statement that the structure beneath the Babri Masjid was “probably a temple,” pointing out that archaeological surveys had uncovered Buddhist and Jain artifacts at the site. He also disagreed with the verdict’s categorization of the mosque’s inner courtyard as a “disputed” area, arguing that the dispute stemmed from unlawful attempts to displace Muslims.

Reflecting on his involvement in the Babri Masjid demolition case, Nariman recounted the delays in trials related to the FIRs filed against the perpetrators. Despite years of inaction, the special judge eventually acquitted all accused, leading to controversy when he was appointed as a deputy Lokayukta in Uttar Pradesh after his retirement.

Justice Nariman Warns of Growing Religious Site Former Supreme Court judge Justice Rohinton Nariman praised a section of the Ayodhya verdict related to the Places of Worship Act, calling it a crucial part of the ruling. Speaking at the inaugural lecture of the Ahmadi Foundation, Nariman noted that the five pages in the 2019 Constitution Bench judgment, which affirmed the 1991 Act, were a positive aspect of the verdict. The Act freezes the status of religious sites as they existed on August 15, 1947, preventing attempts to alter the religious character of places of worship. Nariman emphasized that this provision aligns with the core secular principles of India’s Constitution, which mandates a forward-looking approach rather than revisiting historical grievances.

Nariman expressed concern about the growing number of cases filed in civil courts, particularly in northern India, seeking to restore temples allegedly destroyed to build mosques. He likened these legal actions to “hydra heads” popping up across the country. He cited recent cases, such as one involving the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal, where a survey was ordered following claims it was built over a temple. Nariman suggested that the only way to address these ongoing claims was by applying the principles of the Places of Worship Act as outlined in the Ayodhya verdict.

He argued that these five pages, which form a declaration of law by the Supreme Court, should be read out in every district and high court to prevent further lawsuits and uphold the secular values enshrined in the Constitution. According to Nariman, the Places of Worship Act serves as a legislative tool to protect secularism by enforcing a non-retrogressive approach, ensuring that the religious status of places of worship remains unchanged since 1947.

Nariman warns against secularism threats

Justice Nariman Warns of Growing Religious Site Former Supreme Court Justice Rohinton Nariman has expressed serious concern over the increasing legal challenges to the Places of Worship Act of 1991, which he believes are undermining India’s secular foundation. Speaking at the Justice A.M. Ahmadi Foundation’s inaugural lecture, Nariman referred to these legal cases, primarily targeting mosques and dargahs, as “Hydra heads” that threaten communal harmony. He warned that such lawsuits could escalate communal tensions and conflict with the constitutional vision of secularism, as well as the principles of the Places of Worship Act.

Nariman emphasized that the Act clearly freezes the religious character of places of worship as they were on August 15, 1947, and any legal attempts to alter this status should be rejected. He stressed that the five pages dedicated to this issue in the Ayodhya verdict serve as binding law for lower courts. Drawing a parallel with the erosion of church-state separation in the United States, Nariman highlighted the robust secularism in India’s Constitution, which guarantees citizens the right to freely practice religion while prohibiting state discrimination on religious grounds.

Nariman also criticized the handling of the Babri Masjid demolition case, pointing out inconsistencies in how secularism has been addressed in the related judgments. He warned that the rising tide of lawsuits poses a significant threat to India’s secular fabric and called for strict enforcement of the Places of Worship Act to curb these challenges. The event also marked the release of a biography of Justice A.M. Ahmadi, underscoring Nariman’s call for vigilance in protecting secularism and the rule of law. He concluded by quoting Justice Chinnappa Reddy, urging the preservation of India’s tradition of tolerance.