The Indian judiciary plays a pivotal role in upholding constitutional principles, especially the secular fabric of the country. The concept of judicial inactivism, as discussed by Chad M. Oldfather, highlights the significance of judicial action and inaction. Judicial inaction can sometimes be as consequential as judicial activism, especially when courts defer crucial matters, as seen in the Sambhal Masjid dispute. This case exemplifies judicial reluctance to rule on the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, a crucial law for preserving India’s secular ethos. Additionally, the terms judicial activism and judicial overreach require close examination to understand their impact on the functioning of the judiciary.

Judicial Activism: Theoretical Context

·        Judicial activism involves judges interpreting laws in a dynamic manner, shaping policy decisions, and ensuring that justice evolves with societal changes. While judicial activism has been instrumental in advancing rights and social justice, it can sometimes result in judicial overreach when courts act beyond their constitutional remit. Judicial activism in India has led to several landmark rulings, like those expanding individual rights and influencing policies. However, it also poses challenges when it results in courts overstepping their boundaries and encroaching on the powers of the executive or legislature.

·        In contrast, judicial inactivism refers to the failure of the judiciary to take decisive action when faced with significant constitutional issues. Oldfather’s critique of judicial inaction highlights how such failures can have equally profound consequences, particularly when courts avoid addressing critical matters that impact society and the nation.

Judicial Overreach: A Concern

·        Judicial overreach occurs when courts exceed their jurisdiction, making decisions that belong to other branches of government, such as the executive or legislature. In India, this line often blurs, especially in cases involving controversial social issues. Judicial overreach can undermine the separation of powers principle, lead to a backlog of cases, and create confusion regarding the law’s application.

·        The Sambhal Masjid case demonstrates judicial inaction when the judiciary deferred action on a significant legal issue regarding the Places of Worship Act. By directing the civil court to freeze proceedings and referring the matter to the Allahabad High Court, the judiciary failed to provide a definitive ruling. This reluctance can be seen as judicial inactivism, which hinders the resolution of pressing constitutional issues.

The Places of Worship Act, 1991:

The Places of Worship Act, 1991, was enacted to preserve the religious character of places of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947. The Act aims to ensure that no place of worship is altered in a manner that could disturb the country’s communal harmony. The key provisions include:

1.    Section 3: Prohibits conversion of any place of worship from one religion to another.

2.    Section 4(1): Declares the religious character of places of worship as of August 15, 1947, shall remain unchanged.

3.    Section 4(2): Bars legal proceedings regarding the religious character of these places.

4.    Section 6: Prescribes penalties for violations, including imprisonment and fines.

The Act is fundamental in protecting the secular character of India, preventing any religious community from altering the status of places of worship to suit political or social agendas. However, judicial inaction, as demonstrated in the Sambhal Masjid case, undermines its purpose.

Judicial Deferment in the Sambhal Masjid Case:

In the Sambhal Masjid case, the Supreme Court chose not to adjudicate the dispute regarding the application of the Places of Worship Act. Instead, it referred the matter to the Allahabad High Court, thereby avoiding a definitive ruling. This judicial deferral can be considered judicial inactivism, as the Court’s avoidance of the matter allowed the legal uncertainty surrounding the Act to persist. A timely ruling could have reaffirmed the Act’s intent to preserve the religious status quo and upheld the secular framework enshrined in the Constitution.

Historical Context and Judicial Precedents:

·        This instance of judicial inaction is not isolated. Other recent cases, such as the Shaheen Bagh protests (2020) and Farm Laws protests (2021), reflect similar judicial approaches. In both cases, the Supreme Court opted for mediation or deferral rather than providing a decisive legal judgment. These examples highlight the judiciary's reluctance to tackle politically sensitive issues head-on, contributing to prolonged uncertainty and confusion about legal rights and duties.

·        The Ayodhya judgment (2019), however, was a landmark case where the Supreme Court upheld the Places of Worship Act by reinforcing the importance of maintaining the religious character of places of worship as of 1947. Yet, the subsequent Gyanvapi Mosque case (2023) has raised concerns about the judiciary’s commitment to enforcing the Act, as it seemingly permitted actions that contradicted the intent of the 1991 law.

The Need for Judicial Will

In the Sambhal Masjid case, the Court missed an opportunity to reaffirm the validity and intent of the Places of Worship Act. A decisive ruling could have strengthened the secular fabric of the country and sent a strong message about the role of the judiciary in upholding constitutional values. The lack of judicial will to address such matters leaves room for public confusion and mistrust in the judiciary’s ability to enforce laws impartially.

The Ayodhya Judgment and Its Implications

While the Ayodhya judgment acknowledged the importance of the Places of Worship Act, its implementation in subsequent cases, such as the Gyanvapi Mosque, shows inconsistency in upholding the Act. The Act is designed to protect the secular nature of India, but recent judicial actions appear to undermine its very purpose. The shift between these judgments demonstrates how judicial overreach and judicial inaction can create uncertainty and legal inconsistency, eroding public confidence in the judiciary.

Conclusion

·        The Places of Worship Act, 1991, remains a crucial law to preserve India’s secular ethos and prevent the politicization of religious disputes. The judiciary’s role in upholding this law is vital, but recent trends of judicial inaction, exemplified by the Sambhal Masjid case, have failed to resolve significant constitutional questions. The judiciary must balance judicial activism with judicial restraint, ensuring that it does not exceed its constitutional powers or defer critical decisions.

·        The Sambhal Masjid case presents a critical moment for the judiciary to affirm its commitment to constitutional values and uphold the Places of Worship Act. By exercising its “duty to decide” and adhering to judicial restraint, the judiciary can enhance public trust and reinforce India’s secular framework. Judicial activism must be exercised with caution to avoid judicial overreach, ensuring the stability of the legal system and preserving the rule of law. By striking the right balance, the judiciary can contribute to a healthier democracy, protecting individual rights while respecting the separation of powers.