ABSTRACT
The main aim of legislature while enacting the “Place of Worship Act 1991” was to ensure the protection of religious harmony, freedom of religion, secularism, equality and constitutionalism in the delicate Indian society. The act have through Section 4 freeze the legal and religious status of places of worship as how it was on the day of Independence with exception to one place which is Ram Janmabhoomi in Ayodhya which is the primary reason for bringing this act. The act is often praised for ensuring the communal harmony in society but have been critiqued for restricting any judicial action in this regard, blocking the judicial resolution of historical injustices, especially in relation to atrocities during medieval period by causing destruction of temples. This dissertation takes a close look at the constitutional basis, judicial interpretations, and socio-political effects of the Act. By analysing legal doctrines and case law, including significant rulings like M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, it investigates whether the Act effectively balances communal harmony with historical justice. In the end, the paper advocates for a more nuanced legal approach that not only protects secular values but also allows for restorative justice, calling for a future path grounded in constitutional ethics, inclusivity, and reconciliation.
KEYWORDS
Secularism, Places of Worship Act, Historical Wrongs, Judicial Interpretation, Religious Freedom, Constitutional Morality, Ayodhya Verdict
INTRODUCTION
India’s religious landscape is a rich tapestry, woven from centuries of interactions between various faiths, marked by both harmony and conflict. Islam made its way to India peacefully through trade along the Malabar Coast in the 7th century. However, the later rise of Islamic empires like the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughals brought about conquests that included the destruction and conversion of Hindu temples. These actions, often driven more by political motives than by religious beliefs, have left a lasting mark on historical memory[1]. The Hindutva narrative claims that over 60,000 temples were destroyed, but historian Richard Eaton, after examining Persian records, suggests there were only about 80 confirmed instances and honestly states, “We will never know the actual number.”[2] Still, the emotional weight of these stories continues to fuel disputes over sacred spaces.
The colonial era only intensified these divisions. The strategy of ‘divide and rule’ of the Britishers was implemented through religious classifications in censuses and separate electorates, solidified communal identities and deepened mistrust between Hindus and Muslims. The Partition of 1947, which was accompanied by widespread violence and displacement, ingrained religious trauma into the national consciousness[3]. In this charged atmosphere, sacred sites like Ayodhya, Kashi, and Mathura transformed into more than just religious landmarks—they became symbols of unresolved wounds and contested identities.
In 1991, during the escalating Ram Janmabhoomi movement, Parliament enacted the “Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act”, which aimed to protect the identity of all places of worship as they stood on “August 15, 1947”, except for Ayodhya. The intention behind this law was to avert a chain reaction of temple-mosque conflicts by legally barring any retrospective claims[4]. However, critics contend that the Act compromises historical justice in favour of communal harmony, while others see it as a crucial protection for secularism.
With fresh claims surfacing regarding Gyanvapi, Shahi Idgah, and many more mosques around the country, the discussion has once again found its way into the courts and public debate. Amid increasing hate speech and political division, India faces a challenging dilemma: Should we confront historical injustices, or should we prioritize peace over restitution? This paper delves into the “Places of Worship Act’s” constitutional, legal, and socio-political aspects, questioning whether it strikes a fair balance or simply postpones an unavoidable confrontation.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This research takes a close look at the legal landscape by using a doctrinal and analytical approach. It dives into constitutional provisions, statutory texts, key court rulings, and academic writings. By weaving in historical context, political insights, and comparative viewpoints, it aims to critically evaluate the “Places of Worship Act, 1991”, in the framework of India’s secular framework, while also exploring potential reforms that strike a balance between justice and harmony.
LITERATURE REVIEW
“The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991”, has become a key topic in today’s legal and socio-political discussions, particularly regarding religious harmony, constitutional values, and historical injustices. Various studies delve into the Act’s constitutional legitimacy, its effects on secularism, and the delicate balance between legal finality and restorative justice. The chosen academic works provide valuable insights into the legal and political foundations of the Act, while also highlighting differing views on religious freedom and the need to address historical grievances.
- “Ansh Pandey and Aakarsh Chaudhary – The Places of Worship Act: Analyzing its Constitutional Validity and Legal Challenges”[5] – This article takes a deep dive into the legal framework of the 1991 Act, examining it through the lens of constitutional provisions like Articles 25–30. It discusses how the Act seeks to strike a balance between religious freedom and public order while also putting a stop to retrospective claims. The piece points out some legal gray areas and argues that while the Act aims to foster communal peace, it might infringe on the rights to religion and property in certain situations.
- “Ayaan Siddiqui & Tamanna Ali – The Places of Worship Act, 1991: Legal Challenges, Implications, and the Case of Sambhal Mosque”[6] – This article offers a thorough case study of the Sambhal Mosque to shed light on the real-world effects of the Act. It reflects on the hesitance of the judiciary and examines how historical injustices clash with modern legal protections. The piece emphasizes the ongoing tension between correcting past wrongs and maintaining legal finality, advocating for a more nuanced approach that respects constitutional values.
- “Prosenjit Nath – The Places of Worship Act Controversy: Bharatiya Secularism, Justice, and Religious Harmony”[7] – This article critiques the Western concept of secularism as it’s been interpreted in India, pushing for a model that recognizes civilizational continuity and historical context. It challenges the Act for suppressing legitimate Hindu claims, arguing that it favors one side under the pretense of promoting harmony. The piece offers a culturally grounded critique of the law and reflects on the shifting public sentiment surrounding these issues.
- “Shreshth Srivastava and Vaishali Gaurha – The Controversy Surrounding the Places of Worship Act, 1991: Challenges Against Democracy, Secularism, and the Cherished Principles of Constitution”[8] – This paper takes a close look at the Act through a constitutional lens, evaluating its commitments to democracy and secularism. It dives into the clash of rights between individual claimants and the need for collective peace, while also examining important Supreme Court rulings. The authors contend that the courts’ silence on past injustices equates to a denial of justice, and they raise serious constitutional issues regarding the Act’s broad restrictions on judicial remedies.
While current research presents important viewpoints on the Act’s constitutional validity and its social implications, many tend to take a black-and-white stance—either fully supporting secular harmony or completely rejecting the prohibition on retrospective claims. There’s a noticeable lack of interdisciplinary research that merges legal principles with restorative justice approaches. Additionally, most analyses shy away from thoroughly examining justice that centers on survivors or victims from religious communities impacted by past violations.
CONSTITUTIONAL VISION OF SECULARISM
India’s approach to secularism is all about maintaining a balance—it’s committed to being neutral in matters of religion while also promoting equality and reform. Unlike the Western model, which strictly separates church and state, India embraces the idea of “Sarva Dharma Sambhava,” meaning equal respect for all faiths[9]. This philosophy allows the government to step in on religious issues when it’s necessary to uphold core constitutional values like equality and social justice.
Secularism was officially added in the Preamble with the “42nd Amendment in 1976”, but it was already a fundamental part of the Constitution from the very beginning[10]. In the landmark case of “S.R. Bommai v. Union of India[11] (1994)”, the SC reinforced that secularism is an important characteristic of the Constitution. The Court made it clear that the state should remain neutral towards all religions, ensuring that no single faith is given preferential treatment, while also protecting individual rights.
Articles 25 to 28[12] of the Constitution guarantees “freedom of conscience and the right to practice and promote one’s religion”. These articles empower individuals to follow their beliefs freely, while also allowing the state to step in if religious practices threaten “public order, morality, health, or the rights of others”. This framework is crucial for protecting minority rights.
Moreover, Articles 29 and 30[13] protect the “cultural and educational rights of minorities”, ensuring that their unique languages, scripts, and cultures are preserved. These provisions enable minorities to establish and handle their own educational institutions, reinforcing “India’s dedication to diversity and inclusivity”. India’s secularism strikes a delicate balance between allowing freedom of faith and the government’s responsibility to promote equality, justice, and the safeguarding of minority rights[14].
THE PLACES OF WORSHIP ACT, 1991: BACKGROUND, CONTENT & RATIONALE
“The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991”, was introduced by the Indian government as a response to the growing religious tensions in the early ’90s, particularly fuelled by the Ayodhya temple-mosque conflict. The main goal of the Act was to safeguard the religious identity of sites of worship as they were on the day of independence, effectively freezing their status and preventing any changes, whether legal or illegal. This initiative aimed to uphold India’s secular values and promote communal harmony during a time of intense religious division.
The Act was a direct reaction to the socio-political turmoil that followed the “demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992”, which sparked violence and unrest. Recognizing the urgency of the situation, the government led by “Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao” sought to prevent similar conflicts from escalating throughout the nation. The legislation aimed to stabilize inter-religious relations by locking in the ownership and character of religious sites and prohibiting any attempts to modify them[15].
Key Provisions of the Act:
- Section 3: “This section prohibits any conversion of a place of worship from its religious character as it existed on August 15, 1947, aiming to avert future political or communal disputes over religious sites”.
- Section 4: “This ensures that the status quo is maintained, preventing any legal actions that could change the religious character of places of worship, with certain exceptions noted in Section 5”.
- Section 5: “This section specifically excludes the Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid dispute in Ayodhya, allowing legal proceedings for this case due to its ongoing political sensitivity”.
The main reason behind the Act was to “maintain religious harmony and uphold the secular nature of India”. By preventing any changes to the identity of the places of worship, the law aimed to minimize the risk of communal tensions. It showcased the government’s dedication to preserving India’s secular identity, which in turn helped to limit the politicization of religious matters. However, despite its goal of promoting peace, the Act has been criticized for effectively freezing historical disputes and for not addressing the Ayodhya case. Still, it stands as an important legislation amidst India’s ongoing effort to find a balance between secularism and the rich tapestry of religious diversity[16].
RECONCILING HISTORICAL WRONGS: JUSTICE, MEMORY, AND THE PRESENT DILEMMA
In India, when we talk about “historical wrongs” in relation to religious sites, we’re referring to the destruction, desecration, or conversion of places of worship—especially Hindu temples—during the medieval Islamic period[17]. This was often driven by political motives, but it also had profound religious and cultural impacts. Scholar Richard Eaton has identified around 80 notable instances of temple demolitions that took place between the 11th and 17th centuries. Temples in Kashi, Mathura, and Ayodhya frequently come up as key examples of this civilizational trauma.
Instead of addressing these grievances, the British colonial administration often reinforced the changed status quo through legal means, leaving many of these sites in a state of contention. After India gained independence, “the Places of Worship Act of 1991” aiming to maintain the religious status of all sites as they were on “August 15, 1947”—except for Ayodhya—to promote communal harmony.
However, this legal freeze has led to a new constitutional challenge. Many Hindu groups argue that the Act effectively blocks justice for past wrongs, preventing communities from reclaiming their sacred spaces. They believe that true secularism shouldn’t mean ignoring history but rather engaging with it in a fair manner—potentially through evidence-based legal processes or reconciliation efforts. They highlight archaeological surveys and historical documents that suggest a Hindu origin for disputed sites like “the Gyanvapi Mosque and Shahi Idgah”, seeking restitution not out of a desire for revenge, but to restore dignity[18].
On the flip side, Muslim communities and secular scholars are concerned that reopening these debates could jeopardize social unity and the finality of legal decisions. They believe that selectively revisiting historical grievances could lead to majoritarian backlash and disrupt decades of legal stability, and that the main purpose behind this is to marginalise muslims and fulfil the political aspirations of the ruling party. Many also challenge the extent and motivations behind the alleged temple destructions, advocating for a more nuanced and depoliticized interpretation of history[19].
In this deadlock, the fundamental question remains: Can India come to terms with its past without reigniting its most profound divisions? A balanced solution might involve truth commissions, open discussions, and constitutional reforms that acknowledge past injustices while protecting current harmony—ensuring that the pursuit of justice doesn’t come at the expense of peace.
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION
The way courts interpret “the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991”, has evolved, especially given India’s intricate religious and constitutional backdrop. This Act was originally put in place to uphold “communal harmony by preserving the religious identity of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947”. However, it didn’t gain much traction until the Supreme Court provided significant insights during the 2019 Ayodhya verdict. “In the case of M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das”[20], a Constitution Bench of the apex court recognized that while the Ayodhya site was exempt from the Act under Section 5[21]. The law still carried substantial constitutional weight. The Court referred to it as “a legislative instrument designed to protect the secular features of the Indian Constitution,” emphasizing the principle of non-retrogression and highlighting that the Act reflects India’s dedication to secularism, equality, and fraternity.
This ruling set the stage for how the judiciary would handle future disputes over contested religious sites. However, following the Ayodhya case, new litigations, like those involving “the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah in Mathura”, have introduced fresh challenges to judicial interpretation. In the Gyanvapi case, civil suits have been filed claiming that the mosque is built on the remnants of a demolished temple[22]. Allahabad High Court court-ordered videographic survey, and carbon dating in 2022 which fuelled the discussion when it reported finding what petitioners called a Shivling within the mosque grounds[23]. While the case is still pending, the judiciary has so far exercised caution, permitting certain procedural actions like limited surveys and worship, while avoiding any definitive conclusions about the religious character of the site, thus staying true to the 1991 Act.
In the Mathura dispute, a similar approach has been taken by the courts, which have allowed lawsuits that challenge a 1968 agreement between the temple trust and the mosque management. In this case, the courts haven’t declared the agreement invalid or made any moves that could be interpreted as changing the status quo protected by the Act[24]. It seems that the judiciary is carefully balancing constitutional rights, recognizing the petitioners’ rights under Article 25 to practice their religion freely, while also respecting the legislative goal of preventing historical revisionism through legal means.
Through these cases, the judiciary has been slowly building a thoughtful interpretive framework around the Act. It’s seen not just as a law, but as a constitutional promise to maintain peace in a diverse society. While the future may bring more petitions and increased pressure, the courts have so far relied on the Act as a guiding principle to avoid religious polarization and uphold secular order. This highlights the judiciary’s crucial role as a protector of constitutional values and restraint.
CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO THE ACT
“The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991”, was designed to act as a protective measure for maintaining “communal harmony and upholding the secular nature of India”. However, it has faced increasing scrutiny from a constitutional perspective. The main point of contention revolves around Section 4, which essentially locks in the religious identity of the places of worship as they existed on “August 15, 1947”, and prevents any court from considering legal actions that might change that status. While the intention was to reduce communal strife, it has ignited significant debates regarding how well this statute aligns with the fundamental rights laid out in the Constitution[25].
Many scholars and litigants contend that Section 4 is at odds with several key articles, including “Article 25 (which guarantees freedom of religion), Article 26 (which allows for the management of religious affairs), Article 14 (which ensures equality before the law), and even Article 300A (which pertains to the right to property)”. Critics argue that by shutting down judicial avenues, the Act may unjustly deny communities, particularly Hindus with historical grievances, their constitutional right to seek redress for what they view as religious and cultural injustices[26]. The legal exception made for Ayodhya under Section 5 is frequently pointed out as a case of selective justice, which undermines the principle of equality and opens the door to interpretations of history that favour the majority.
In recent years, there have been petitions, like the one from advocate Ashwini Upadhyay in 2022, that have raised questions about the “constitutional validity of the Act” in front of the Supreme Court[27]. These challenges argue that the blanket ban on litigation unfairly restricts faith-based legal claims and takes away communities’ rights to express their religious and cultural identities[28]. Additionally, the Act’s cut-off date of 1947 is seen as arbitrary, ignoring the complexities of injustices from pre-colonial and colonial times, many of which are still unresolved.
Judicial discussions, especially in the M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das (2019) case, acknowledged the Act as a means of upholding secularism and legal finality, but they didn’t delve into its broader constitutional implications. As the Gyanvapi and Mathura disputes unfold, courts have allowed procedural actions like surveys and prayers, subtly testing the limits of Section 4 without outright overturning it, suggesting a growing tension within the judiciary.
This brings us to a significant constitutional question: Does the Act prioritize peace over justice? The real challenge ahead is figuring out whether this legal standstill can hold up in a democracy that values rights-based governance, or if it needs thoughtful reform to better reflect India’s evolving constitutional principles.
BALANCING THE PAST AND THE PRESENT: A WAY FORWARD
“The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991”, was put in place to protect India’s secular values by “maintaining the religious identity of places of worship as they were on August 15, 1947”. It prohibits any changes to these places and aims to keep their religious significance intact. However, the Act has come under fire for possibly “violating fundamental rights”. Critics point out that it prevents judicial review, a key element of the Constitution, and sets an arbitrary cutoff date that overlooks historical injustices[29].
Additionally, there are concerns that the Act limits the “religious rights of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs” by making it difficult for them to reclaim and restore their places of worship. In its “2019 Ayodhya ruling”, the apex court supported the Act, emphasizing that it upholds the State’s constitutional duty to ensure equality among all religions and protects the places of worship for every faith community. To bridge these differing views, we need a thoughtful approach. This means carefully reviewing the Act to tackle its criticisms, making sure it allows for judicial review, and finding a balance between preserving religious identity and honouring the rights of various communities.
Engaging the public and ensuring transparency are crucial steps in this process to foster fairness and consistency. In the end, the aim should be to uphold secularism while also addressing historical grievances through constitutional avenues, promoting unity and harmony in India’s rich and diverse society.
CONCLUSION
The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, sits at a crucial crossroads of India’s legal, religious, and historical landscape. It was introduced to protect secularism and curb communal tensions, but it has also unintentionally stifled valid claims that stem from historical injustices. The courts have generally viewed the Act as a cornerstone of secularism, yet they’ve displayed some flexibility, particularly in ongoing cases like Gyanvapi and Mathura. As new conflicts arise and old grievances resurface, the rigidity of the Act presents both constitutional and social hurdles. Looking ahead, India needs to embrace a balanced and inclusive strategy—one that respects the essence of secularism while addressing the quest for justice. To maintain communal harmony and uphold constitutional values, reforms, transparency, and genuine public discussions will be crucial. The aim shouldn’t be to erase history but to recognize it in a way that encourages healing and a collective national identity.
By
Name : Emadul Hoda Shams
Enrolment No.: A3211120277
Section: D
Course: Ballb(h)
College: Amity University Noida
[1] “Lost to time: Hindu temples demolished by Mughal emperors” Whats Hot, https://www.whatshot.in/delhi-ncr/lost-to-time-hindu-temples-demolished-by-mughal-emperors-c-45085 (last visited Apr 17, 2025).
[2] “We will never know the number of temples desecrated through India’s history”: Richard Eaton Scroll.in, https://scroll.in/article/769463/we-will-never-know-the-number-of-temples-desecrated-through-indias-history-richard-eaton (last visited Apr 17, 2025).
[3] “The origins of Hindu-muslim conflict in South Asia” The Diplomat, https://thediplomat.com/2019/03/the-origins-of-hindu-muslim-conflict-in-south-asia/ (last visited Apr 17, 2025).
[4] “Explainer: What is the places of Worship Act, 1991 and why it is important” The South First, https://thesouthfirst.com/news/explainer-what-is-the-places-of-worship-act-1991-and-why-it-is-important/ (last visited Apr 17, 2025).
[5] Ansh Pandey & Aakarsh Chaudhary, “The places of worship act: Analyzing its constitutional validity and legal challenges”. Juscholars.com (2025), https://juscholars.com/the-places-of-worship-act-analyzing-its-constitutional-validity-and-legal-challenges/ (last visited Apr 15, 2025).
[6] Ayaan Siddiqui & Tamanna Ali, “The places of Worship Act, 1991: Legal challenges, implications, and the case of Sambhal mosque”, JOURNAL FOR LAW STUDENTS AND RESEARCHERS (2025), https://www.jlsrjournal.in/the-places-of-worship-act-1991-legal-challenges-implications-and-the-case-of-sambhal-mosque-by-ayaan-siddiqui-tamanna-ali/ (last visited Apr 15, 2025).
[7] “The places of worship act controversy: Bharatiya secularism, justice, and religious harmony” HinduPost, https://hindupost.in/law-policy/the-places-of-worship-act-controversy-bharatiya-secularism-justice-and-religious-harmony/ (last visited Apr 17, 2025).
[8] Shreshth Srivastava & Vaishali Gaurha, “The controversy surrounding the places of Worship Act, 1991: Challenges against democracy, secularism, and the cherished principles of Constitution” SSRN (2023), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4355324 (last visited Apr 15, 2025).
[9] “Understanding secularism in the Indian context Sociology Institute”, https://sociology.institute/sociology-in-india/understanding-secularism-indian-context/ (last visited Apr 17, 2025).
[10] “Secularism: Why Nehru dropped and Indira inserted the S-word in the Constitution” The Indian Express, https://indianexpress.com/article/research/anant-kumar-hegde-secularism-constitution-india-bjp-jawaharlal-nehru-indira-gandhi-5001085/ (last visited Apr 17, 2025).
[11] S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, 1994 Supp. (1) S.C.C. 1 (India).
[12] INDIA CONST. arts. 25–28.
[13] INDIA CONST. arts. 29–30.
[14] “Secularism and religious freedom in India: An overview” Research Gate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356844367_Secularism_and_Religious_Freedom_in_India_An_Overview (last visited Apr 17, 2025).
[15] “Balancing faith and law: The places of worship act, 1991, and why it continues to be invoked” The Indian Express, https://indianexpress.com/article/research/balancing-faith-and-law-the-places-of-worship-act-1991-and-why-it-continues-to-be-invoked-9703707/ (last visited Apr 17, 2025).
[16] “The places of Worship Act, 1991: Legal challenges, implications, and the case of Sambhal mosque”, Ayaan Siddiqui & Tamanna Ali JOURNAL FOR LAW STUDENTS AND RESEARCHERS, https://www.jlsrjournal.in/the-places-of-worship-act-1991-legal-challenges-implications-and-the-case-of-sambhal-mosque-by-ayaan-siddiqui-tamanna-ali/ (last visited Apr 17, 2025).
[17] “Historical wrong and constitutional rights” Swarajyamag, https://swarajyamag.com/blogs/historical-wrong-and-constitutional-rights (last visited Apr 17, 2025).
[18] “The places of worship act controversy: Bharatiya secularism, justice, and religious harmony” HinduPost, https://hindupost.in/law-policy/the-places-of-worship-act-controversy-bharatiya-secularism-justice-and-religious-harmony/ (last visited Apr 17, 2025).
[19] “Temple-mosque disputes are sprouting across India” The Diplomat, https://thediplomat.com/2024/02/temple-mosque-disputes-are-sprouting-across-india/ (last visited Apr 17, 2025).
[20] M. Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Mahant Suresh Das, (2020) 1 SCC 1 (India).
[21] The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, No. 42 of 1991, § 5.
[22] “The legal dispute over Varanasi, Mathura mosques: Explained” The Hindu, https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/the-legal-dispute-over-varanasi-mathura-mosques-explained/article67808876.ece (last visited Apr 17, 2025).
[23] “Allahabad High Court orders carbon dating of “Shivling” at gyanvapi” The Indian Express, https://indianexpress.com/article/india/allahabad-high-court-scientific-survey-shivling-gyanvapi-mosque-8606058/ (last visited Apr 17, 2025).
[24] “Explained: The krishna janmabhoomi case in Mathura, and the challenge to the 1968 ‘compromise’ between the Hindus and Muslims” The Indian Express, https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-krishna-janmabhoomi-case-mathura-mosque-1968-compromise-hindus-muslims-7927363/ (last visited Apr 17, 2025).
[25] “The places of worship act: Analyzing its constitutional validity and legal challenges” Juscholars.com, https://juscholars.com/the-places-of-worship-act-analyzing-its-constitutional-validity-and-legal-challenges/ (last visited Apr 17, 2025).
[26] “Is the places of Worship Act, 1991 constitutional?” Bar and Bench – Indian Legal news, https://www.barandbench.com/columns/is-the-places-of-worship-special-provisions-act-1991-constitutional (last visited Apr 17, 2025).
[27] “Constitutionality of the places of worship act” Supreme Court Observer, https://www.scobserver.in/cases/ashwini-kumar-upadhyay-union-of-india-constitutionality-of-the-places-of-worship-act-case-background/ (last visited Apr 17, 2025).
[28] “BJP leader challenges worship act in Supreme Court” Law Times Journal, https://lawtimesjournal.in/bjp-leader-challenges-worship-act-in-supreme-court/#:~:text=A%20writ%20petition%20has%20been%20filed%20before%20the,illegal%20encroachment%20on%20the%20places%20of%20worship%20 (last visited Apr 17, 2025).
[29] “The controversy surrounding the places of Worship Act, 1991: Challenges against democracy, secularism, and the cherished principles of Constitution” SSRN, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4355324 (last visited Apr 17, 2025).