Past wrongs cannot be basis for disturbing present and future peace: Delhi Court dismisses suit for restoration of temples in Qutub Minar complex

Nobody has denied that wrongs were committed in the past, but such wrongs cannot be the basis for disturbing peace of our present and future, a Delhi Court held while dismissing a suit seeking restoration of 27 Hindu and Jain Temples in Delhi's Qutub Minar complex (Tirthankara Lord Rishab Dev & Ors v. Union of India)..The observation came in an order passed by Civil Judge Neha Sharma of the Saket Court.The judge went on to observe that fundamental rights enshrined under Article 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution are not absolute in nature."The right under Article 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution have to be exercised subject to just exceptions created. It is an admitted fact that the suit property is a mosque built over temples and is not being used for any religious purpose, no prayers/namaz is being offered in the suit property. Hence, in my considered opinion, plaintiffs do not have an absolute right to restoration and worship in the suit property as public order which is an exception to Article 25 and 26 requires that status quo be maintained and protected monument be used for no religious purpose," the Court noted..The Court was hearing a suit for declaration that the property in question, known as Quwwat-Ul-Islam, is a huge temple complex which was declared as a protected monument under Section 3 of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904.The plaintiffs had argued that Qutub ud-Din Aibak, a commander of Mohammed Ghori, destroyed the Shree Vishnu Hari temple and 27 Jain and Hindu temples and raised inner constructions within the temple complex. The temple complex was later renamed as ‘Quwwat-Ul-Islam Mosque,’ and since Muslims never declared the place as a Waqf property before or after the construction, the construction could not be used as Mosque at any point of time, it was claimed.It was submitted that the Central government is the owner of the said property and that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has administrative control over the same. Thus, the plaintiffs sought relief in the form of restoration of deities within the temple complex.Further, the plaintiffs sought issuance of a direction to the Central government to frame a scheme of administration and to create a trust to manage puja, worship, and maintenance of the property as per the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act)..The primary question before the Court was whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any legal character or to any right which they can enforce by way of relief of declaration.In its verdict, the Court noted that the argument of the plaintiffs that Section 4(3)(a) of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 excludes ancient and historical monuments covered by the AMASR Act."Section 4(3)(a) has to be seen in the larger context of the Places of Worship Act. The object of the Act is to prohibit conversion of any place of worship and to provide for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on the 15th day of August, 1947."The Court, therefore, held that ancient and historical monuments cannot be used for a purpose which runs counter to their nature as religious places of worship, but can always be used for some other purpose which is not inconsistent with their religious character. Once a monument has been declared to be a protected monument and is owned by the government, the plaintiffs cannot insist that the place of worship must actually and actively be used for religious services, the order stated..It was further observed that every endeavour must be made to enforce the objective of the AMASR Act, and that the purpose of the Places of Worship Act, 1991 was to maintain the secular character of India. The order stated,"Our country had a rich history and has seen challenging times. Nevertheless, history has to be accepted as a whole. Can the good be retained and bad be deleted from our history? Thus, harmonious interpretation of both the statutes is required to give full force to the objective behind the Places of Worship Act, 1991.".One of the submissions made by the plaintiffs was that the Government of India acquired ownership of entire area of Quwwat-ul-Islam Masjid under Section 3 of the 1904 Act, and that administrative control was handed over to the ASI. However, on the date of acquisition of the area, nobody was representing the temples and deities and no opportunity was granted to them as required under Section 10 of the 1904 Act, even though property continues to be vested in the deity..The Court reproduced Section 3 of the Act, wherein it is explicitly stated that anyone who seeks to challenge the notification of converting an ancient monument to a protected monument needs to do so within one month. Post this period, the government shall confirm or withdraw the notification.It was highlighted that the notification was never challenged by anyone, including the plaintiffs. In light of this, the notification is valid, and the ownership lies with the government. The plaintiffs thus have no right to claim restoration and right to religious worship without challenging the notification itself, the Court held..The Court also did not find merit in the objection made by the plaintiffs that all the questions raised can only be decided after framing of issues and not at this stage. It was held that nothing in Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) limits the power of the court to examine whether the plaint discloses any cause of action or not."The phrase at any stage in Order VII Rule 11 CPC must not be interpreted to limit the power of courts to throw meritless suits even at the initial stage," the Court noted.Thus, the defendant cannot be burdened with the cost of defending the suit in every case even if the plaint discloses no cause of action, the Court held..During the course of arguments made before the Court, the plaintiffs vehemently argued that the destruction of the deities in the erstwhile temple complex was a national shame. To this, the Court noted that nobody has denied that wrongs were committed in the past, but such wrongs cannot be the basis for disturbing peace of our present and future.The Court concluded with a quote from the Supreme Court's Ayodhya judgment, in which it was noted,"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...".[Read Order]