Legal Reasoning Practice Test (CLAT) - 02 [The Places of Worship Act]

Passage:

DIRECTION FOR QUESTIONS: Read the following passages carefully and answer the questions that follow:

The Places of Worship Act is intrinsically related to the obligations of a secular state. It reflects the commitment of India to the equality of all religions. Above all, the Places of Worship Act is an affirmation of the solemn duty which was cast upon the State to preserve and protect the equality of all faiths as an essential constitutional value, a norm which has the status of being a basic feature of the Constitution. There is a purpose underlying the enactment of the Places of Worship Act. The law speaks to our history and to the future of the nation. Cognizant as we are of our history and of the need for the nation to confront it, Independence was a watershed moment to heal the wounds of the past. Historical wrongs cannot be remedied by the people taking the law in their own hands. In preserving the character of places of public worship, Parliament has mandated in no uncertain terms that history and its wrongs shall not be used as instruments to oppress the present and the future.

Section 4(1) clearly stipulates that the religious character of a place of worship as it existed on 15 August 1947 shall be maintained as it existed on that day. Section 4(2) specifically contemplates that all suits, appeals and legal proceedings existing on the day of the commencement of the Places of Worship Act, with respect to the conversion of the religious character of a place of worship, existing on 15 August 1947, pending before any court, tribunal or authority shall abate, and no suit, appeal or proceeding with respect to such matter shall lie after the commencement of the Act. The only exception in the proviso to sub-section (2) is where a suit, appeal or proceeding is instituted on the ground that the conversion of the religious character of a place of worship had taken place after 15 August 1947 and such an action was pending at the commencement of the Places of Worship Act.

At its heart, this reiterated what the Constitution always respected and accepted: the equality of all faiths. Secularism cannot be a writ lost in the sands of time by being oblivious to the exercise of religious freedom by everyone.

[Source – M. Siddiq vs. Mahant Suresh Das para 83-84; 204{Ayodhaya Judgement}]DIRECTION FOR QUESTIONS: Read the following passages carefully and answer the questions that follow:

The Places of Worship Act is intrinsically related to the obligations of a secular state. It reflects the commitment of India to the equality of all religions. Above all, the Places of Worship Act is an affirmation of the solemn duty which was cast upon the State to preserve and protect the equality of all faiths as an essential constitutional value, a norm which has the status of being a basic feature of the Constitution. There is a purpose underlying the enactment of the Places of Worship Act. The law speaks to our history and to the future of the nation. Cognizant as we are of our history and of the need for the nation to confront it, Independence was a watershed moment to heal the wounds of the past. Historical wrongs cannot be remedied by the people taking the law in their own hands. In preserving the character of places of public worship, Parliament has mandated in no uncertain terms that history and its wrongs shall not be used as instruments to oppress the present and the future.

Section 4(1) clearly stipulates that the religious character of a place of worship as it existed on 15 August 1947 shall be maintained as it existed on that day. Section 4(2) specifically contemplates that all suits, appeals and legal proceedings existing on the day of the commencement of the Places of Worship Act, with respect to the conversion of the religious character of a place of worship, existing on 15 August 1947, pending before any court, tribunal or authority shall abate, and no suit, appeal or proceeding with respect to such matter shall lie after the commencement of the Act. The only exception in the proviso to sub-section (2) is where a suit, appeal or proceeding is instituted on the ground that the conversion of the religious character of a place of worship had taken place after 15 August 1947 and such an action was pending at the commencement of the Places of Worship Act.

At its heart, this reiterated what the Constitution always respected and accepted: the equality of all faiths. Secularism cannot be a writ lost in the sands of time by being oblivious to the exercise of religious freedom by everyone.

[Source – M. Siddiq vs. Mahant Suresh Das para 83-84; 204{Ayodhaya Judgement}]

Question 1:

What is the implication of a law/principal stated as part of Basic Structure of Indian Constitution?

a) Places a fundamental duty on citizens to abide by it.

b) Only SC can make laws in relation to that principal.

c) Places a restriction on the amending powers of the Parliament.

d) It is merely a judicial jargon with no practical effect.

Question 2:

Aurengzeb was a bigoted Mughal ruler of Medieval India. Mahant Ambi is a priest in Varanasi. He found out that Aurengzeb had demolished a temple in Varanasi and constructed a mosque above it. He moves to the District court on 24 May 2019 for demolition of the mosque on grounds of illegal construction over a Hindu Shrine. Will the court allow?

a) Yes, the slogan of Ram Janbhoomi movement was “Kashi, Mathura baaki hai”.

b) No, the Mahant has submitted no proof about which mosque needs to be demolished.

c) Yes, illegal constructed places of worship above another place of worship are bound to be demolished.

d)No, the Places of Worship act places a moratorium over the court to consider any such historical event as valid or invalid. 

Question 3:

Babur was a Mughal ruler of Medieval India. Mahant Suresh Das is a priest at the Hanuman Gadi temple of Ayodhaya. He filed a suit for demolition of Babri Masjid in the district court in 1884 as it was constructed over a famous Hindu Temple. The mosque was demolished by a mob in 1992 even before the court could decide. The SC has decided to hear the matter in July 2020, can the court hear the petitions? Decide.

a) No, the mosque has already been demolished, the purpose of the suit is fulfilled.

b) Yes, the dispute was brought to the court in 1884, ahead of the deadline in the Places of Worship Act, hence the court can hear the matter.

c) Yes, illegal constructed places of worship above another place of worship are bound to be demolished.

d) No, the Places of Worship act places a moratorium over the court to consider any such historical event as valid or invalid.

Question 4:

Samundragupta was a ruler of Ancient India. During his reign, Brahmanism rose to prominence. Buddhist shrines were demolished or converted into Hindu Temples across the Gupta empire. Monk Dalai Lama moved a petition for restoration of Buddhist Shrines in Bihar region in 1965. Can his petition be allowed? The SC has decided to hear the matter in July 2020, can the court hear the petitions? Decide.

a) Yes, illegal constructed places of worship above another place of worship are bound to be demolished.

b) No, the Places of Worship act places a moratorium over the court to consider any such historical event as valid or invalid.

c) No, the Monk has submitted no proof about which temple needs to be demolished.

d) Yes, Buddhists are equally entitled to get justice for historical wrongs committed on their religious shrines.

Question 5:

Mr. Narendra Modi won his second national election in 2019. The RSS had supported his campaign wholeheartedly. The RSS has now pressurized the government to pass a new citizenship law which declares Indians as “Hindus”. The government under pressure drafts a legislation towards the same and puts it up for discussion on its website. The draft is challenged before the SC. Is the draft constitutionally valid? Decide.

a) No, Secularism is a part of basic structure of Indian Constitution.

b) Yes, All Indians are Hindus in the Hindu Rashtra.

c) Yes, Parliament’s power to legislate is supreme.

d) None of the above.

Question 6:

The government of India is constructing a new Airport in Noida, Delhi. During land acquisition, the government found multiple religious shrines. The government decided to relocate all the shrines on new land for the furtherance of development work. Mahant Ambi, a priest from one such shrine approached the court on July 2019 challenging the government's action. He is arguing that as per the Places of Worship Act, post 1947, there cannot be any change in the character of religious places. Is the action of government illegal? Decide.

a) Yes, the Places of Worship act places a moratorium on conversion of religious shrines.

b) No, the dispute is not of historical nature and beyond the purview of the Places of Worship Act.

c) Yes, the government is changing the nature of land from religious to commercial.

d) No, the shrines are being relocated and the Places of Worship act does not bar that.

Question 7:

Babur was a Mughal ruler of Medieval India. Mahant Suresh Das is a priest at the Hanuman Gadi temple of Ayodhaya. He filed a suit for demolition of Babri Masjid in the district court in 1884 as it was constructed over a famous Hindu Temple. The mosque was demolished by a mob in 1992 even before the court could decide. A case has been brought before the SC against the action of the mob for demolition of the Mosque by the mob. Is the action of the mob valid? Decide.

a) Yes, illegal constructed places of worship above another place of worship are bound to be demolished.

b) No, the matter was sub judice and the people have no right to take the law into their own hands.

c) Yes, the mob corrected a historical wrong by taking the law in their own hands.

d) None of the above.

---

Explanation With Answers

---

Answer 1: C

             Explanation: As per the Kesvananda Bharti Case, Parliament cannot amend the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. Thus, it places a restriction on the power of the parliament to amend the constitution.

Answer 2: D

             Explanation: The Places of Worship Act considers all religious places as status quo on 15 August 1947 and limits any future adjudication on historical wrongs by court. The case here was filed in 2019, which is barred under the act.

Answer 3: B

             Explanation: The Places of Worship Act considers all religious places as status quo on 15 August 1947 and limits any future adjudication on historical wrongs by court. The case here was filed in 1884, which is permissible under the act.

Answer 4: B

             Explanation: The Places of Worship Act considers all religious places as status quo on 15 August 1947 and limits any future adjudication on historical wrongs by court. The case here was filed in 1965, which is impermissible under the act.

Answer 5: A

             Explanation: Secularism is part of the basic structure of the Indian constitution and the Parliament cannot legislate or amend the basic structure of the constitution.

Answer 6: D

             Explanation: The Places of Worship Act deals bars from changing the nature of religious shrines from one religion to another. It does not bar government to undertake relocation of shrines for development work.

Answer 7: B

             Explanation: The people cannot take law into their own hands even for religious issues. The Places of Worship act also acts as a protection against such actions of the mob. The action of the people was wrong even if the court would’ve decided in their favour on the dispute eventually.