阿布舍克·辛格维 (Abhishek Singhvi)：1991 年法案旨在防止有关历史宗教遗址的无休无止的争议

国大党高级领导人兼联邦院议员 Manu Singhvi 在法律演讲活动中分享了他对不同有趣话题的看法

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.

国大党领袖阿布舍克·马努·辛格维 (Abhishek Manu Singhvi) 周五表示，1991 年《宗教场所法案》旨在划定一条明确的界限，以防止有关历史宗教遗址的无休无止的争议，并承认许多宗教建筑都是建立在其他建筑之上的。

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

这位高级倡导者在周五由 iTV Network 组织的第三次法律与宪法对话中发表讲话。

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.

他说，最近，最高法院通过了一项出色的暂缓令，停止新的诉讼，并限制正在进行的案件的最终和临时命令，直到问题得到完全解决。

“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.

“在最高法院审查这个问题时，全国各地不应该出现大量诉讼。 1991 年的法案旨在划定一条明确的界限，以防止有关历史宗教遗址的无休无止的争议。许多宗教建筑都建在其他建筑之上。回顾历史我们应该走多远？正如甘地所说，“以眼还眼，让全世界都盲目”。重新讨论这些问题没有任何价值，”辛格维说。

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.

该倡导者强调了当该法案禁止改变时允许调查检查结构的一个缺陷，将其比作当一个人被禁止参加晚宴时决定晚宴着装。他对最高法院最近在该法案的有效性正在接受审查期间暂停此类调查的干预表示欢迎。

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.

他还谈到了印度宪法的基本支柱，他将其分为制度性宪法和非制度性宪法。在关键支柱中，他强调了世俗主义，强调印度的多样性以及为每个公民提供归属感的必要性。

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.

他强调博爱不仅仅是宽容，还鼓励庆祝不同的观点。他还提到了联邦制，指出印度尽管最初被视为单一制国家，但仍演变为联邦结构。

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.

他说，议会、选举委员会和全能神教会等机构为印度持久的民主作出了贡献，使其有别于许多摆脱殖民统治的国家。

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，辛格维也承认这些支柱的理论理想与当前的操作现实之间存在差距。他指出了宪法未预见到的日益严重的恐惧、分裂和不信任问题。

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.

他列举了联邦制遭到破坏的例子，例如州长推迟对州法案的决定，影响了治理。他批评在国家事务中选择性使用印度中央调查局，并强调选举委员会在公正性方面的失误。

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

他说，议会中发生的前所未有的事件，例如 142 名议员被大规模停职，也表明民主受到了令人担忧的侵蚀。

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.

他还称赞基本结构学说是捍卫印度民主的非凡而独特的概念。他批评了那些贬低它的人，强调这一学说在全球范围内受到推崇。

“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.

“基本结构原则的本质是，即使议会通过的宪法修正案如果违反了宪法的基本特征，也可以被视为违宪。它源于德国哲学家康拉德的思想，并最终在具有里程碑意义的凯萨瓦南达·巴拉蒂案中得到确立，纳尼·帕尔希瓦拉在该案中论证了其有效性，”辛格维说。

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.

他解释说，该原则确保宪法的基本部分保持不可修改，司法机构根据具体情况确定基本结构的构成。这可以遏制潜在的行政越权行为，防止独裁统治。

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.

辛格维说，司法审查早在该学说出现之前就已经存在，并且一直限制议会的权力，而议会的权力从来都不是绝对的。他补充说，法官明智地行使了这一权力，谨慎地使用它来推翻违宪修正案并保护宪法的核心价值观。