Apex Court Likely To Hear Pleas Challenging Places Of Worship Act In March; Says Only Limited Intervention Applications Will Be Permitted
The CJI clarified that there is a limit to the number of interventions allowed, given the large volume of pending petitions. "We will give a date when its turn comes," the CJI added.
The Supreme Court today indicated that it will schedule a batch of petitions challenging the Places of Worship Act, 1991, for hearing in March 2025, including the framing of legal questions for consideration.
During the mention of the matter, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna stated that the case could not be taken up immediately due to the large number of petitions.
"The Places of Worship Act matter may not be heard today, seeing the number of petitions filed. We will have to give a date in March for hearing (for framing of questions also)," the CJI remarked.
On the issue of new intervention petitions, the CJI clarified that there is a limit to the number of interventions allowed, given the large volume of pending petitions. "We will give a date when its turn comes," the CJI added.
It is to be noted that there is another fresh petition filed by Samajwadi Party leader and Member of Parliament, Iqra Choudhary, seeking implementation of the Places of Worship Act 1991, which is listed before the Bench led by the CJI.
Other Intervention Applications
In January, an Intervention Application was filed by the Indian National Congress (INA) in the pending challenge to the validity of Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 (POWA).
The party, which describes itself as the oldest functioning political entity in the country and the principal opposition in Parliament, has sought leave to intervene in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1246 of 2020 filed by BJP leader, Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, which challenges the constitutional validity of the Act. "The Applicant seeks to intervene in this matter to emphasize the constitutional and societal significance of the POWA, as it apprehends that any alterations to it could jeopardize India's communal harmony and secular fabric thereby threatening the sovereignty and integrity of the nation," the INA stated in the application.
The Application was supported by an affidavit sworn by KC Venugopal, General Secretary i/c Organisation of the AICC.
It is to be noted that, earlier in January, the Akhil Bhartiya Sant Samiti had approached the Apex Court seeking a declaration that Sections 3 and 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, are void and unconstitutional. The organization contended 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 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.
The Communist Party of India (CPI) 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.
"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.
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.
Court Proceedings
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.
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.
About the Main Petitions
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.
Cause Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 001246 /2020; Diary No. 23509/2020]
