Courts should not stray from the constitutional vision of secularism 

Courts should not stray from the constitutional vision of secularism 

Subject: Polity

Section: Constitution

Context:

• As an alternate view for the court’s gyanvapi case judgment, there is a thought that Courts should not stray from the constitutional vision of secularism.

Allahabad High Court’s Controversial Ruling

• Legal Challenge Validated: Allahabad High Court permits suits from 1991 to declare part of Gyanvapi Mosque property of Lord Vishweshwar.
• Controversial Interpretation: Court claims the Places of Worship Act is not applicable until the “religious character” is determined.
• Potential for Communal Tension: The ruling may expedite the conversion of a mosque into a temple, fueling societal tension.

Discrepancies in Judicial Treatment

• Divergent Treatment: Contrasts treatment of 2022 suits by women worshippers, focused on worship rights, with 1991 suits seeking mosque conversion.
• Inconsistent Interpretation: Despite explicit mosque-related relief sought in 1991 suits, the court deems them maintainable, raising concerns.
• Survey Controversy: ASI survey ordered for 2022 suits to decide 1991 suits, fostering ambiguity and potential for further disputes.

Constitutional Vision

• Judiciary’s Constitutional Role: The judiciary must prioritize secularism and resist legitimizing attempts to change worship places’ status.
• National Importance Claim: The High Court’s claim of “vital national importance” raises eyebrows; judiciary should focus on impartial adjudication.
• Enforcement of Legal Bar: Upholding the statutory Places of Worship Act is crucial to prevent altering the status of religious sites.