Discuss the challenges before the State in maintaining public order amid competing religious claims over disputed shrines, with reference to the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah case.

The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 froze the religious character of shrines as they stood on 15 August 1947, exempting only the Ram Janmabhoomi–Babri Masjid dispute [1]. Yet renewed litigation over the Krishna Janmabhoomi–Shahi Idgah complex in Mathura shows that the State's burden of preserving public order amid competing religious claims remains unresolved.

Legal ambiguity weakens the State's shield

• The 1991 Act bars conversion and ousts court jurisdiction over pre-1947 religious character [1], but it does not define "religious character", allowing fresh suits.
• The Allahabad High Court held the 18 civil suits of the Hindu side maintainable in August 2024 [2], with the matter carried further to the Supreme Court — leaving the administration to manage a legally open dispute for years.

Risk of mass mobilisation

• Calls by religious leaders for "Kar Seva" at the Mathura site compelled the District Magistrate and SSP to report security arrangements to the High Court in sealed cover [3].
• Interlocutory steps such as surveys and inspections become mobilisation triggers, since public order is a State List subject with the district administration as the first responder.

Administrative and institutional strain

• Prolonged bandobast diverts scarce police capacity; the Second ARC's Fifth Report, "Public Order", flagged weak police reform, poor intelligence-led prevention and inadequate district-level conflict management as core gaps [4].
• Perceived partiality in enforcement erodes minority confidence, while sealed-cover practice trades transparency for security.

Social and ethical dimension

• Competing claims convert a title dispute into an identity contest, straining Mathura's everyday communal coexistence and the constitutional promise of fraternity.

The Mathura case shows that public order fails less from sudden violence than from unmanaged anticipation. Timely adjudication, intelligence-led preventive policing, functioning peace committees and strict neutrality in enforcement can hold the ground. Ultimately, honouring the 1991 Act's spirit — that history's disputes not become the present's flashpoints — best secures both secularism and social harmony.