Letter or Spirit of the Law?

There is a very well known quote in legal circles:

“The?letter of the law and the spirit of the law?are two possible ways to regard rules, or laws. To obey the letter of the law is to follow the literal reading of the words of the law, whereas following the spirit of the law means enacting the intent behind the law. Although it is usual to follow both the letter and the spirit, the two are commonly referenced when they are in opposition”?

The Gyanvapi mosque case is an ideal case for applying the test of the literal law vs. the spirit of the law.

The Primary Act that is being debated is The Places of Worship Act of 1991

?The Preamble of the said Act states that it is :

?‘An Act 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, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto’

Sec. 3 of the said Act states that:

—‘No person shall convert any place of worship of any religious denomination or any section thereof into a place of worship of a different section of the same religious denomination or of a different religious denomination or any section thereof.’

Sec 4 (1) of the Act states that:

"It is hereby declared that the religious character of a place of worship existing on the 15th day of August, 1947 shall continue to be the same as it existed on that day.”

?On a plain reading, these clauses seem to be a clear cut prohibition on changing the character of the Gyanvapi mosque, as my learned senior Mr. Sriram Panchu eloquently puts in his interview. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2RiBob2rQM )

But this reading may not be consistent with the many acts and deeds of the Indian State, Indian Judiciary and Indian religious denominations in the last 75 years, especially since 1947.

In 2018, the Supreme Court?allowed women of menstruating ages to worship in the Sabarimala temple. Could this not be termed as an act whereby Sec. 3 of Places of Worship Act 1991 was violated ?

Read …. “No person shall convert any place of worship of any religious denomination or any section thereof into a place of worship of a different section of the same religious denomination……….”

In fact, over the years, many ‘changes’ have been effected in thousands of places of Worship, either by the Indian State or the?devotees?themselves or the Judiciary or the owners/ trustees?of the places of worship.

The Haji Ali Dargah Trust started allowing women inside the sanctum sanctorum of the ?Dargah since 2016.

?The Parsi Anjuman Trust started allowing women to enter the?‘fire temple’ since 2017

?The character of many?places of worship has consistently?changed over the years.

??At many places,?a particular deity has been traditionally worshipped with the ‘bali’ of a buffalo or a cock. They have been?changed and over the years, the said physical ‘bali’ of blood and gore has become a symbolic 'bali' of make believe .

Also ‘worship’- be it?in style or?ability, is capable of being changed with differing needs and times. A man who has lost his hands and wants to do a ‘dua’ which he cannot, cannot be said to be unable to ‘worship’ god. ‘How to worship’ and change in ‘ways’ of worship, is part of our fundamental right to freedom of religion.

Law cannot stop us from?change.?Change is fundamental to organic nature. And human beings are organic.

?Gyanvapi mosque is being used, as of present, for ‘worship' of Allah. If the same mosque is going to be used for the worship of ‘Devis’, or a ‘Shiv-ling' , ?will it change the character of the place?

?Actually, it won’t change, but it will ‘add’ to the expansion of worship.

?Certainly, we are allowed to ‘add’ to our character, is'nt it?

?A ‘character’ may not be changed, but we cannot be stopped from ‘evolving’ the character?of a place. It is the natural order of things that evolution cannot be stopped.

Sabarimala judgment?did not convert the fundamental character of worship. It only ‘added’ to the fundamental character of worship. It added the aspect of 'menstruating' women devotee to the ‘only male’ devotee aspect of the worship.

‘Adding a layer’?to something is different from ‘conversion’.

?Adding a ‘layer’ can mean evolution. ‘Conversion’ simply means total change from one to the other.

When a thing ‘evolves’, it?retains its character, but layers are added to it’s character to allow it to become amenable to modern thought, necessity, evidence, trend and sensibility.

Evidence has come to the fore about the Gyanvapi mosque. That there was a Shiv-ling in the same spot, and that there were Devi murtis at the said spot. More evidence might surface.

Therefore, it would be completely fitting to allow this?‘place of worship’ to add more layers of worshippers. Let those who wish to worship the Shivling be allowed to do so; let those who want to worship the Devis do so.

?The issue then is only about managing the logistics of different types of worship. Not about converting a place of worship.

?Let the?Sunni Muslims continue to worship in the Mosque. Let the Shiv Bhakts worship the Shiv-ling. Let the women devotees worship the Devis.

?This ‘evolution’ will allow us to be consistent with our Constitutional rights, and will allow consistency with the laws of the land, including the Places of Worship Act 1991.

?It will also build pluralism in religious worship, which is the end goal of the secular Indian State.

?Therefore, open the doors of the mosque to all worshippers. We are not converting the mosque, we are only allowing?it to ‘evolve’.

?And put in place a good management system to ensure that all worshippers get their satisfaction from worship.