A/53/279 indicate your comments as well as measures undertaken and/or envisaged by your Government. Comments and measures Electoral reforms have been a continued feature of the Indian polity. India has an independent constitutional body, the Election Commission of India, to supervise elections both at the Federal and state levels. Its impartial and strict handling of elections is widely recognized. The Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, is the major law governing elections in India. The Government is committed to the scrupulous implementation of this Act. Whenever a need has been felt to amend certain sections/provisions of the Act, the Election Commission has made suitable recommendations and new provisions have been brought in or existing ones amended. For example, the Act underwent significant changes in August 1996. The Supreme Court has also contributed to the process of electoral reforms through a number of landmark judgements (e.g. Civil Petition No. 24 of 1995 on election expenditure). Appeal to religion is prohibited under the Indian election laws and the case law on this is well-established. There is a related legislation to prevent the misuse of religious places for political purposes (discussed later). While existing election laws are deemed by the Government of India to provide sufficient safeguards, legislation in all important areas including elections is under the constant scrutiny of the Parliament. Recommendations Taking into account paragraph 93 of the report, “The Special Rapporteur also considers that places of worship should be used exclusively for religious, and not political, purposes. As places for prayer and meditation, they should be protected against tension and partisan struggle. The State should therefore ensure that places of worship remain neutral ground and are sheltered from political currents and ideological and partisan controversy. In this connection the Special Rapporteur urges that the dispute concerning Ayodhya should be settled on terms acceptable to the Muslim and Hindu communities. Although the Babri Masjid case can be partially settled by legal means, it must be approached with an exceptional degree of caution and an equally exceptional degree of wisdom. Calling into question situations and rights that are rooted in the distant past is likely to open the door to a sequence of events which could have unforeseeable consequences and in particular lead, through acts of violence performed in the name of an extremist conception of religion, to disorders in various parts of India, the news of which, as 18 it spreads internationally and, more especially, throughout the region, may affect peace and security within the region. The most logical solution would seem to be to restore these places of worship as they were before the riots occurred – unless the religious communities concerned decide to effect a symbolic exchange as a means of cooling passions and reducing tensions. The authorities must remain on the watch to prevent the recurrence of such traumatic incidents, which are sources of division and hate between communities. It is important that the Indian authorities should be fully aware that the dangers in this area are not purely theoretical”, the Special Rapporteur would appreciate if you could indicate your comments as well as measures undertaken and/or envisaged by your Government. Comments and measures The Special Rapporteur has rightly observed that places of worship should be used exclusively for religious purposes. In the light of serious incidents of abuse of religious places, the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988, was enacted with a view to maintaining the sanctity of religious places and to prevent their misuse for political or criminal activities. It, inter alia , casts responsibility on the management of the concerned institution to inform the police in the event of misuse of the place of worship. The Act also prohibits storage of arms and ammunition inside any place of worship. The Government of India is committed to ensuring that religious places are not misused for the promotion of intolerance. Ayodhya issue By the Supreme Court judgement of 24 October 1994, the pending suits and other proceedings relating to the disputed Ram Janma Bhoomi-Babri Masjid area have been consolidated for final adjudication of the dispute by the Allahabad High Court. The role of the central Government, which was vested with the control of the disputed area by an earlier ordinance, has been limited by this judgement to that of a statutory receiver with the duty to maintain the status quo till the adjudication of the title suits. Thus, the disputed area cannot be handed over to anybody for construction of a temple, mosque or any other structure except as decided by the High Court in the title suits. In compliance with the above judgement, the central Government has made all appropriate arrangements to maintain the status quo in the disputed area. As regards the observation made by the Special Rapporteur that the dispute be settled on terms acceptable to the Muslim and Hindu communities, it may be mentioned that prior to the demolition of the disputed structure on 6