The Act has been read two ways since it was passed, and both readings have been argued in court.
On the first, it is a statutory settlement of the kind a legislature makes to stop a class of dispute that cannot be resolved case by case without continuous conflict. On this view the date of independence is chosen as a line that is arbitrary in principle and defensible in practice, and the Act protects the secular character of the state by removing questions of historical grievance from the courts entirely.
On the second, it is an unconstitutional bar on access to justice. The argument is that section 4(2), by abating pending suits and barring fresh ones, removes the judicial remedy of parties who say they were dispossessed, and that a legislature cannot extinguish a cause of action of that kind without offending the constitutional guarantees of equality and of remedy.
The Supreme Court of India described the Act in 2019, in the judgment that resolved the Ayodhya title suit, in terms that treated it as an affirmation of the state's commitment to secularism, though the site itself was outside the Act by section 5. Petitions challenging its validity were filed the following year and the proceedings continue.
The atlas records the Act as in force, because it is, and records its constitutional standing as unsettled, because that is what a pending challenge means. It does not predict the outcome.