Last Updated: April 2026
The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 is back in the spotlight after the Supreme Court, in late April 2026, refused to vacate its 12 December 2024 stay restraining all civil courts from passing fresh survey orders or final decrees in suits challenging the religious character of places of worship. For CLAT 2027 aspirants, this is a high-yield current affairs and legal reasoning topic — it sits squarely at the intersection of secularism (Preamble), Article 25–28, Article 14, the Ayodhya carve-out, and the basic structure doctrine.
What the Places of Worship Act, 1991 Says
Enacted by the P.V. Narasimha Rao government in the run-up to the Babri Masjid demolition, the Act is short — just 8 sections — but constitutionally explosive. Its core provisions:
- Section 3: Bars conversion of any place of worship from one religious denomination (or section) to another.
- Section 4(1): Declares that the religious character of every place of worship as it existed on 15 August 1947 shall continue.
- Section 4(2): Abates any pending suit, appeal, or proceeding challenging the religious character of a place of worship as on 15 Aug 1947, and bars filing of any fresh suit or proceeding.
- Section 5: Carves out an exception for the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute in Ayodhya.
- Section 6: Punishment up to 3 years and fine for contravention.
Why It Is Back Before the Supreme Court
Multiple petitions — including those by Ashwini Upadhyay, Subramanian Swamy, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, and others — argue that Sections 2, 3 and 4 violate Articles 14, 15, 25, 26, 29 and the basic structure by:
- Imposing a “retrospective cut-off date” of 15 August 1947 that allegedly legitimises pre-Independence acts of religious destruction.
- Denying judicial remedy to communities that wish to “reclaim” places of worship — a violation of Article 32 and the right of access to courts.
- Carving out only Ayodhya (Section 5) — alleged Article 14 violation by under-inclusive classification.
- Conflicting with the Ayodhya 5-judge Constitution Bench dictum (M Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, 2019) which described the Act as a “legislative instrument designed to protect the secular features of the Indian polity” — i.e., a basic-structure-friendly law.
The April 2026 hearing — before a 3-judge bench led by the CJI — saw the Court refuse to lift its 12-Dec-2024 status-quo order in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India (W.P. (C) No. 1246/2020) that had frozen all 18+ pending Mathura, Kashi, Sambhal, Bhojshala and Ajmer Sharif suits at the survey-order stage.
Comparison Table — POW Act 1991 Constitutional Touch-Points
| Aspect | Petitioners’ View | Government / Defenders’ View |
|---|---|---|
| Article 14 | Ayodhya carve-out is arbitrary classification | Sui generis dispute predating Constitution; valid intelligible differentia |
| Article 25/26 | Denies right to manage religious affairs of own denomination | Protects rights of all denominations as on 15.8.1947 |
| Article 32 | Bars judicial remedy = bars fundamental right | Parliament can regulate procedure for enforcement of rights (basic-structure-compliant) |
| Basic Structure | Retrospective bar violates rule of law | Ayodhya Bench (2019) ruled it protects basic structure (secularism) |
| 15 Aug 1947 cut-off | Arbitrary, no rational nexus | Independence date = Constituent moment, rational anchor |
Five Landmark Cases Every CLAT Aspirant Must Know
- M. Siddiq (D) Thr. LRs v. Mahant Suresh Das (2019) — 5-judge bench (Ayodhya verdict) — para 82 onwards calls POW Act a “legislative intervention” preserving secularism.
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) — birth of basic structure; secularism becomes part of it (later in S R Bommai).
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) — secularism is basic structure.
- Indra Sawhney v. UoI (1992) — Article 14 + intelligible differentia test routinely applied.
- Aruna Roy v. UoI (2002) — Article 28 + secularism upheld in NCERT curriculum case.
CLAT 2027 Legal Reasoning Angle
Expect a passage-based question framed as: “If a Hindu group seeks to reclaim a temple destroyed in 1670 and converted into a mosque, can it file a civil suit in 2027?” The principle to apply: Section 4(2) bars such suits except for the Ayodhya carve-out under Section 5. Apply the bar — answer is “no, the suit is barred.” This is exactly the structure CLAT loves: principle from statute → application to fact.
What’s Next?
The matter is listed for further hearing in May 2026. Three possible outcomes:
- POW Act is upheld in full → status quo continues across 18+ suits.
- Section 4(2) is read down → surveys allowed but final decrees barred.
- Sections 3-4 struck down (lowest probability) → Ayodhya-style litigation opens for Mathura, Kashi, Sambhal etc.
Track this for the CLAT 2027 General Knowledge and Legal Reasoning sections — it’s the most cited “live” constitutional case of 2026.
Internal Resources for CLAT 2027
- CLAT 2027 Syllabus — Complete Section-wise Breakdown
- CLAT Coaching in Patna — Why CLAT Gurukul
- Free CLAT Mock Test 2027
- CLAT 2027 FAQ — All Your Doubts Answered
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the Places of Worship Act 1991 currently in force in 2026?
Yes. It is fully in force. The Supreme Court has only stayed fresh survey orders pending final adjudication of the constitutional challenge.
Why was Ayodhya excluded from the POW Act?
Because the Ayodhya dispute was already pending in court (and pre-dated the Act by decades). Parliament treated it as sui generis.
What is the cut-off date under the POW Act?
15 August 1947. The religious character of any place of worship as on that date is frozen by Section 4(1).
What is the punishment for violating the POW Act?
Imprisonment up to 3 years and fine, under Section 6.
How is this relevant for CLAT 2027?
It tests Articles 14, 25-28, 32, basic structure doctrine, and the principle-fact application style of legal reasoning passages. Expect at least one passage on this in CLAT 2027.
Image credit: Photo by Saumya / Unsplash (illustrative)
