India Explained
ImplementedINCP. V. Narasimha Rao, minority, outside supportUnsettled

Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991

The Act freezes the religious character of places of worship as on 15 August 1947 and bars suits to change it, excepting Ayodhya. Its validity is before the Supreme Court, which paused new suits in December 2024.

Religious institutions & laws, Heritage & culture

Facts

  • The Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha by Home Minister S.B. Chavan on 23 August 1991. Reports give 10 September 1991 for Lok Sabha passage, 12 September for the Rajya Sabha and 18 September 1991 for assent [3].
  • Section 3 bars conversion of a place of worship of one religious denomination or sect into one of a different denomination or sect. Section 4(1) declares that the religious character of a place of worship shall continue as it existed on 15 August 1947 [1].
  • Section 4(2) abates pending suits and proceedings on such conversion and bars fresh ones, with a proviso for cases where the change occurred after 15 August 1947. Section 4(3)(a) exempts ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites under the 1958 Act. Section 5 exempts the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site at Ayodhya [1].
  • In M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das (Ayodhya, 2019) a Constitution Bench described the Act, as quoted in later filings, as a legislative instrument designed to protect the secular features of the Indian polity, which is a basic feature of the Constitution. A commentary by an advocate states these observations were obiter and the Court did not decide the Act's constitutionality in that case [1][3].
  • Petitions challenging the Act, including by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, argue the 1947 cut-off is arbitrary; Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind and others seek its enforcement [1][2][3].
  • On 12 December 2024 a bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K.V. Viswanathan ordered: 'While suits may be filed, no suits would be registered and proceedings undertaken till further orders of this Court.' It also directed courts not to pass effective interim or final orders, including survey orders, in pending suits, and asked the Union to file a counter-affidavit within four weeks, listing the matter for 17 February 2025 [2].
  • The Court refused to stay proceedings in pending suits against mosques and dargahs [2]. The current status of the hearing after early 2025 was not verified.

Why

Reasons given by those who did it

  • Home Minister S.B. Chavan, as reported, said the protections were needed because efforts to convert religious institutions corrupt the environment of the community, and expressed confidence the Bill would help restore communal amity [3].
  • Member of Parliament Ram Vilas Paswan, quoted in an advocate's column, defended the cut-off date by reference to independence: 'We don't want to go into history' [1].
  • CPI(M) leader Somnath Chatterjee said his party would have preferred including Ayodhya but accepted the Bill because Ayodhya was an emotional issue to be resolved by discussion [3].

Criticism of that reasoning

  • BJP members argued in 1991 that the Bill was outside the legislative competence of the Lok Sabha, demanded that the Gyanvapi and Mathura sites be excluded along with Ayodhya, and walked out, as reported [3].
  • Petitioners and an advocate's column argue that the bar on remedies denies access to justice, that the 1947 cut-off is arbitrary, and that exempting only Ayodhya discriminates among sites (Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, 29) [1].

Benefits and concerns

Benefits (2)

  • Provides a fixed statutory reference date, reducing the scope for fresh litigation over the religious character of existing sites.Sections 3 and 4 [1]; the December 2024 order was passed because new suits over mosques and dargahs were being filed and surveys ordered [2]. The number of such suits was not located.
  • Treated by the Supreme Court in 2019 as an expression of the Constitution's secular commitment.Observations in M. Siddiq, as quoted in later filings; their weight as obiter is disputed [1][3].

Concerns (3)

  • Bars judicial remedy for claims, including those based on events before 1947.Section 4(2) abatement and bar on fresh suits; petitioners' challenge on access to justice [1].
  • Single-site exemption and arbitrary cut-off alleged.Section 5 exempts Ayodhya only; petitioners argue the 1947 cut-off fixes a colonial-era status quo [1]. Supporters of the Act, including political parties intervening in the Supreme Court, argue the Act protects secularism and public order [2].
  • Unsettled law while petitions are pending.December 2024 interim order halting registration of new suits and effective orders in pending suits [2].

Evidence points

+1.5
points, mean of two scorers (scale −25 to +25)
+1 to +2
range between the two scorers' totals
Low confidence
1 criterion where scorers differ
ReachHow many people did the action materially affect?
Mean 0.0A 0B 0
Outcome evidenceDo official or independent data show the intended result (or its opposite), compared with the era baseline and peers?
Mean 0.0A 0B 0
Cost and sustainabilityIs the fiscal cost proportionate, and is the effect durable?
Mean 0.0A 0B 0
Process and rightsWas it made with debate, consultation and legal soundness, and did it respect rights and court rulings?
Mean 0.0A −1B +1Scorers differ
DeliveryWas it implemented as announced, on time and at scale?
Mean +1.5A +2B +1

Positive meanNegative meanScorer AScorer B

Scorer A. Intended to freeze disputes, but its validity is pending before the Supreme Court and fresh litigation prompted an interim order, so outcome evidence is unclear.

Scorer B. Passed with debate and walkout, its validity is pending before the Supreme Court and outcome data on litigation reduction are absent.

Context used when scoring

Era baseline
In 1991 disputes over religious sites, notably Ayodhya, were the subject of mass mobilisation and litigation; no general statutory freeze on the character of sites existed.
Lag before outcomes show
5 years
Uncertainty
Low confidence. Scorer totals are +1 and +2. How uncertainty is shown.

In depth

The Act applies a cut-off date of 15 August 1947 to every place of worship other than the Ayodhya site and ancient monuments covered by archaeological law. Supporters say the date draws a line under historical disputes and protects communal harmony. Challengers say it forecloses legal remedies, uses an arbitrary date, and treats one site differently.

On the legal question, the Supreme Court has not issued a final ruling on the Act’s validity in the sources reviewed. In M. Siddiq (2019) the Court described the Act in terms of secularism, but whether those observations bind a later challenge is disputed: one reading treats them as an answer to the present petitions, another as obiter. In December 2024 the Court interim-restricted new suits and effective orders in pending suits while it considers the batch.

Dates of passage and the Act’s text were not checked against the Gazette or India Code; confidence is low.

Source note: no primary document (statute text, Gazette notification, court judgment or official dataset) is listed for this entry; its sources are bill summaries, legal-news reports, encyclopaedic or commentary pieces. Confidence is therefore set to low until the primary text is checked.

Sources

Last reviewed .Report an error orchallenge a score.

Related actions

  • ImplementedINCReligion, Culture & Society

    Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986

    Enacted after the Shah Bano judgment, the Act set post-divorce maintenance for Muslim women under a separate statute; the Supreme Court upheld it in 2001 while reading in a wider duty.

    Evidence points −3.5 (range −6.0 to −1.0)

  • ImplementedBJPReligion, Culture & SocietyUnsettled

    Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025

    The Act amended the Waqf Act, 1995 on registration, waqf creation, survey and dispute rules and board membership. In September 2025 the Supreme Court stayed some provisions and declined to stay the whole Act.

    Evidence points −0.5 (range −1.0 to 0.0)