Research report on Babri Masjid verdict and Places of Worship Act warns against fresh religious disputes
NEW DELHI — A major legal and constitutional discussion on the Babri Masjid demolition verdict called for strict implementation of the Places of Worship Act 1991 and stronger protection of constitutional secularism and religious equality.
The discussion was held in the national capital at the weekend under the joint initiative of Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind and the South Asian Minorities Lawyers Association.
The organisers presented a detailed research report examining the Babri Masjid judgment and the Places of Worship Act, before senior advocates, former judges, academics and legal experts.
The event was chaired by Maulana Mahmood Madani.
According to the report, the Places of Worship Act, 1991 plays a crucial role in protecting India’s secular structure, communal harmony and constitutional stability by preventing reopening of historical religious disputes.
The report presented a detailed legal analysis of important Supreme Court judgments, especially the Ismail Faruqui case and the 2019 Ayodhya verdict in the M Siddiq v Mahant Suresh Das case.
It argued that the interpretation in the Ismail Faruqui judgment, which observed that a mosque was not an essential part of Islam, had significantly influenced later legal disputes involving mosques.
The report recommended strict implementation of the Places of Worship Act and stronger protection of constitutional secularism and religious equality.
Addressing the gathering, Mahmood Asad Madani said there was a serious need for a scholarly and constitutional study of the Babri Masjid judgment so future generations could understand how one section of society viewed the verdict differently.
“This report is an honest effort to protect India’s secular identity, constitutional values and communal harmony,” he said.
Madani stated that nowhere in the Babri Masjid case had it been conclusively proven that the mosque was built after demolishing a temple.
He said the Supreme Court itself acknowledged in portions of its judgment that no decisive evidence existed supporting that claim.
He further said Indian Muslims showed patience, constitutional commitment and responsibility after the Ayodhya verdict, but despite this, fresh disputes involving places such as Gyanvapi Mosque, Shahi Eidgah Mosque and Kamal Maula Mosque were continuing to emerge.
“This is not only an issue concerning one community. It concerns India’s constitutional identity, judicial credibility and the basic principles of justice,” he said.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising said the Babri Masjid matter and the Places of Worship Act were not simply about one religious structure.
“This concerns the constitutional future of the country and affects both Hindus and Muslims equally,” she said.
She stressed that judges in a secular democracy must decide cases according to the Constitution, law and equality rather than religious belief.
Legal luminary Faizan Mustafa said the Places of Worship Act was a constitutional effort aimed at preserving the historical status of religious places.
However, he noted that merely having a law did not automatically guarantee protection.
“The real need is to strongly preserve documents, historical records and legal ownership related to religious sites,” he said.
He added that although courts accepted several historical and legal aspects in the Babri Masjid case, some observations remained open to scholarly disagreement.
Mustafa also stressed the importance of dialogue, reconciliation and practical realities while resolving sensitive religious disputes.
Senior advocate Salman Khurshid said an important part of the Babri Masjid judgment had effectively recognised the legal arguments presented by Muslims.
He added that reports of the Archaeological Survey of India had nowhere conclusively proven that a temple was demolished to construct the mosque.
Senior advocate M R Shamshad warned that attempts to weaken the Places of Worship Act or create fresh disputes through archaeology laws could threaten India’s secular constitutional framework.
He said constitutional rights should not remain limited to books alone and their practical implementation must be ensured.
Advocate Nizam Pasha said mosques were not merely buildings made of bricks and stones but symbols of Muslim religious and historical identity.
“It is the responsibility of Muslims to stand firmly for the protection of their mosques and religious symbols,” he said.
He argued that the Babri Masjid dispute had effectively become a “place versus place” dispute rather than “faith versus faith”.
Former judge Iqbal Ahmed Ansari praised the release of the report and said it carried importance because of its detailed analysis of the judicial and social dimensions of the Babri Masjid issue.
He made a sharp observation regarding the Ayodhya verdict, saying, “What happened in the Babri Masjid case was a decision, not necessarily a judicial judgment.”
According to him, a judicial judgment required strong legal reasoning, while decisions could sometimes be influenced by surrounding circumstances.
Senior advocate Ejaz Maqbool said historical injustices must be remembered honestly and presented factually.
He also stressed that one of the biggest challenges before Muslims today was protecting constitutional rights, especially rights under Article 30 relating to religious and educational freedom.
Several prominent lawyers, academics and Muslim scholars attended the programme, including Mohammad Hakimuddin Qasmi, Niaz Ahmed Farooqui, Rubina Javed, Fuzail Ayyubi and academics from Jamia Millia Islamia.
The event concluded with speakers repeatedly stressing the importance of constitutional morality, secularism, judicial fairness and peaceful coexistence at a time when religious disputes continue to shape public and political debate in India.
