阿布舍克·辛格維 (Abhishek Singhvi)：1991 年法案旨在防止有關歷史宗教遺址的無休無止的爭議

國大黨高級領導人兼聯邦院議員 Manu Singhvi 在法律演講活動中分享了他對不同有趣主題的看法

Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi on Friday said the 1991 Places of Worship Act aimed to draw a definitive line to prevent endless disputes over historical religious sites, acknowledging that many religious structures are built atop others.

國大黨領袖阿布舍克·馬努·辛格維(Abhishek Manu Singhvi) 週五表示，1991 年《宗教場所法案》旨在劃定一條明確的界限，以防止對歷史宗教遺址的無休無止的爭議，並承認許多宗教建築都是建立在其他建築之上的。

The senior advocate was speaking at the 3rd Law and Constitution Dialogue organised by iTV Network on Friday.

這位高級倡導者在周五由 iTV Network 組織的第三次法律與憲法對話中發表演講。

Recently, the Supreme Court passed an excellent holding order that halts new suits and restricts final and interim orders in ongoing cases until the matter is fully resolved, he said.

他說，最近，最高法院通過了一項出色的暫緩令，停止新的訴訟，並限制正在進行的案件的最終和臨時命令，直到問題完全解決。

“There should not be a rush of suits across the country while the Supreme Court is examining this issue. The 1991 Act aimed to draw a definitive line to prevent endless disputes over historical religious sites. Many religious structures are built atop others. How far should we go in revisiting history? As Gandhiji said, ‘An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind’. Reopening these issues offers no value,” Singhvi said.

「在最高法院審查這個問題時，全國各地不應該出現大量訴訟。 1991 年的法案旨在劃定一條明確的界限，以防止有關歷史宗教遺址的無休無止的爭議。許多宗教建築都建在其他建築之上。回顧歷史我們該走多遠？正如甘地所說，「以眼還眼，讓全世界都盲目」。重新討論這些問題沒有任何價值，」辛格維說。

The advocate highlighted a flaw in allowing surveys to examine structures when the Act prohibits changes, likening it to deciding on dinner attire when one is barred from attending dinner. He welcomed the Supreme Court’s recent intervention in pausing such enquiries while the Act’s validity is under review.

該倡導者強調了當該法案禁止改變時允許調查檢查結構的一個缺陷，將其比作當一個人被禁止參加晚宴時決定晚宴服裝。他對最高法院最近在該法案的有效性正在接受審查期間暫停此類調查的干預表示歡迎。

He also spoke about the fundamental pillars of the Indian Constitution, which he classified as institutional and non-institutional. Among the key pillars, he highlighted secularism, emphasising India’s diversity and the need to provide every citizen with a sense of belonging.

他也談到了印度憲法的基本支柱，他將其分為制度性憲法和非制度性憲法。在關鍵支柱中，他強調了世俗主義，強調印度的多樣性以及為每個公民提供歸屬感的必要性。

He stressed fraternity as more than just tolerance, encouraging the celebration of different viewpoints. He also pointed to federalism, noting India’s evolution into a federal structure, despite initially being framed as a unitary state.

他強調博愛不僅僅是寬容，還鼓勵慶祝不同的觀點。他也提到了聯邦制，指出印度儘管最初被視為單一制國家，但仍演變為聯邦結構。

Institutions like Parliament, the Election Commission, and the CAG have contributed to India’s enduring democracy, distinguishing it from many nations that emerged from colonial rule, he said.

他說，議會、選舉委員會和全能神教會等機構為印度持久的民主做出了貢獻，使其有別於許多擺脫殖民統治的國家。

However, Singhvi also acknowledged the gap between the theoretical ideals of these pillars and the current operational reality. He pointed out growing issues of fear, divisiveness, and distrust not anticipated by the Constitution.

然而，辛格維也承認這些支柱的理論理想與當前的操作現實之間存在差距。他指出了憲法未預見的日益嚴重的恐懼、分裂和不信任問題。

He cited instances of federalism being undermined, such as governors delaying decisions on state bills, impacting governance. He criticised the selective use of the CBI in state matters and highlighted lapses in the Election Commission’s impartiality.

他列舉了聯邦制遭到破壞的例子，例如州長推遲對州法案的決定，影響了治理。他批評在國家事務中選擇性使用印度中央調查局，並強調選舉委員會在公正性上的失誤。

Unprecedented events in Parliament, like the mass suspension of 142 MPs, also indicate a concerning erosion of democracy, he said.

他說，議會中發生的前所未有的事件，例如 142 名議員被大規模停職，也顯示民主受到了令人擔憂的侵蝕。

He also praised the basic structure doctrine as a remarkable and unique concept that safeguards democracy in India. He criticised those who belittle it, emphasising that the doctrine is admired globally.

他也稱讚基本結構學說是捍衛印度民主的非凡而獨特的概念。他批評了那些貶低它的人，強調這一學說在全球範圍內受到推崇。

“The essence of the basic structure doctrine is that even a constitutional amendment passed by Parliament can be deemed unconstitutional if it violates the fundamental features of the Constitution. It has its roots in German philosopher Conrad’s ideas and was ultimately established in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case, where Nani Palkhivala argued its validity,” Singhvi said.

「基本結構原則的本質是，即使議會通過的憲法修正案如果違反了憲法的基本特徵，也可以被視為違憲。它源自於德國哲學家康拉德的思想，並最終在具有里程碑意義的凱薩瓦南達·巴拉蒂案中得到確立，納尼·帕爾希瓦拉在該案中論證了其有效性， 」辛格維說。

He explained that the doctrine ensures essential parts of the Constitution remain unamendable, with the judiciary determining what constitutes the basic structure on a case-by-case basis. This acts as a check on potential executive overreach, preventing dictatorship.

他解釋說，該原則確保憲法的基本部分保持不可修改，司法機構根據具體情況確定基本結構的組成。這可以遏止潛在的行政越權行為，防止獨裁統治。

Judicial review existed long before the doctrine and has always limited Parliament’s power, which was never meant to be absolute, Singhvi said, adding that judges have exercised this power judiciously, using it sparingly to strike down unconstitutional amendments and protect the Constitution’s core values.

辛格維說，司法審查早在該學說出現之前就已經存在，並且一直限制議會的權力，而議會的權力從來都不是絕對的。它來推翻違憲修正案並保護憲法的核心價值。