The Akhil Bhartiya Sant Samiti has approached the Supreme Court seeking a declaration that Sections 3 and 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, are void and unconstitutional. The organization contends that these provisions violate several fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, including Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, and 29.

The Samiti, represented by General Secretary Swami Jeetendranand Sarswatee, argues that the Act’s provisions infringe upon the rights of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs to reclaim and restore places of worship that were allegedly encroached upon by historical invaders. The applicant claims that the Act’s arbitrary cutoff date of August 15, 1947, disregards historical injustices and bars judicial remedies, which they assert undermines the principles of natural justice and secularism.

"The arbitrary cutoff date i.e.15.08.1947 by the Act to determine the status of religious places/places of worship. This cutoff date disregards historical facts and injustices and therefore denies the right to redress for encroachments. The Act infringes upon the religious rights of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs. It restricts to reclaim and restore places of worship therefore impeding freedom to practice their religion," the petition reads.

The petition filed through AoR Atulesh Kumar further argues that prohibiting judicial review—a fundamental aspect of the Constitution—violates the basic structure doctrine upheld in landmark Supreme Court judgments, including Minerva Mills and L. Chandra Kumar. Additionally, the Samiti contends that the Act infringes on state powers under Entry 7, List II of the Seventh Schedule, which governs pilgrimage and religious practices.

Citing Hindu jurisprudence and past Supreme Court decisions, the Samiti asserts that deity property is perpetual and cannot be usurped or invalidated, even by legislative action. The petition refers to cases such as Mahant Ram Swaroop Das and Thakurji Govind Deoji Maharaj Jaipur, emphasizing the eternal and inviolable status of deity properties in Hindu law.

The application also seeks intervention in a pending writ petition filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay challenging the same provisions of the 1991 Act, underscoring the broader constitutional implications and the need for judicial scrutiny. The Samiti has requested the Court to allow its application to intervene in the matter and grant necessary relief.

"The applicant respectfully submit that the applicant /Intervener has approached this Hon’ble Court seeking identical reliefs to declare that Section 3 and 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 is void and unconstitutional for being violative of Articles 14,15,21,25,26 and 29 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the present application for intervention is being filed and in the interest of justice, the intervention application may be allowed by this Hon’ble Court," the petition states.

The Apex Court on January 2 had agreed to consider a plea filed by AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi, seeking effective implementation of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The Act mandates maintaining the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947.

It is to be noted that on December 18, 2024, the Apex Court while hearing a batch of similar petitions against the 1991 law, restrained all courts from entertaining fresh suits and passing any interim or final orders in pending cases seeking to reclaim religious places, particularly mosques and dargahs. "As the matter is sub-judice in this court, we deem it appropriate that no fresh suit would be registered and proceedings are undertaken till further orders of this court," the CJI-led bench had said.

As a result, the Apex Court had stalled the proceedings in about 18 lawsuits filed by various Hindu parties seeking surveys to ascertain the original religious character of 10 mosques, including Gyanvapi at Varanasi, Shahi Idgah Masjid at Mathura besides Shahi Jama Masjid at Sambhal where four persons' lives were snuffed out in clashes.

Recently, Manoj Kumar Jha, Rajya Sabha MP from the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), has filed an intervention application in the Supreme Court supporting the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The intervention, filed through Advocate-on-Record Fauzia Shakil, argues that the 1991 Act aligns with the constitutional principles enshrined in the Preamble and Articles 14, 15, 25, 26, and 51A. It asserts that the Act promotes secular values and is essential for preserving communal harmony by maintaining the status quo of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947.

"The Act serves as a legislative guarantee to protect religious structures and reinforces the obligations of a secular State, ensuring equality among religions," the application states. It adds that the Act does not violate any fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution and instead upholds the spirit of secularism.

Jha's plea raises concerns about the growing use of religion for political purposes and the potential threat to constitutional values posed by such practices. "Recent incidents of weaponizing religion, polarizing communities, and fostering a divisive agenda have led to a situation where dissent and diversity are increasingly under threat," it notes.

Pertinently, in July 2023, the Court had granted time till October 31 to the Centre to file its response to a batch of pleas challenging certain provisions of a 1991 law that prohibits filing a lawsuit to reclaim a place of worship or seek a change in its character from what prevailed on August 15, 1947.

On January 9, 2023, the Apex Court had asked the central government to file its reply to the PILs against some provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, and had granted it time till the end of February to submit its response. The Court is seized of six petitions, including the PILs filed by Ashwini Upadhyay and former Rajya Sabha MP Swamy, against the provisions of the law.

Upadhyay has prayed that Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, be set aside on grounds, including that these provisions take away the right of judicial remedy to reclaim a place of worship of any person or a religious group. Earlier, the apex court had observed that the pleas challenging the validity of certain provisions of the law can be referred to a five-judge Constitution bench for adjudication. While Swamy wanted the Apex court to "read down" certain provisions to enable Hindus to stake claim over the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah Mosque in Mathura, Upadhyay claimed the entire statute was unconstitutional and no question of reading down arises.

The Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, represented by Advocate Ejaz Maqbool, had referred to the five-judge Constitution bench judgment in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title case and said the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, has been referred to there and it cannot be set aside now.

The petition alleged that the 1991 law creates an "arbitrary and irrational retrospective cut-off date" of August 15, 1947, for maintaining the character of the places of worship or pilgrimage against encroachment done by "fundamentalist-barbaric invaders and law-breakers." The 1991 law prohibits conversion of any place of worship and provides for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The law had made only one exception on the dispute pertaining to the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid in Ayodhya.

The Communist Party of India had filed an application before the Apex Court in Ashwini Upadhyay's matter, supporting the 1991 Act, stating that the destruction of temples by invaders is not a universally accepted claim and that Hindu rulers have destroyed Buddhist monasteries.

Cause Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors.

Places of Worship Act

Sukriti Mishra