Alteration Of Act Could Jeopardize Communal Harmony, Sovereignty And Integrity Of Nation: Congress Moves Apex Court Supporting Places Of Worship Act
In its Intervention Application, the party defended the constitutional validity of the Act, asserting that it reflects the mandate of the people and upholds the values of secularism enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
An Intervention Application has been 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 states in the application.
The Application is supported by an affidavit sworn by KC Venugopal, General Secretary i/c Organisation of the AICC.
The POWA, enacted during the 10th Lok Sabha with the support of the applicant party, is aimed at maintaining the character of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947. The Act prohibits the conversion of any place of worship and provides for the preservation of their religious character. The petitioner in the main case alleges that the Act violates fundamental rights, including the right to freedom of religion and the basic tenets of secularism.
The national political party submits, "The POWA is essential in order to allow for communal harmony and to promote cordial relations amongst all communities in the country."
In its Intervention Application filed through AoR Abishek Jebaraj the party defended the constitutional validity of the Act, asserting that it reflects the mandate of the people and upholds the values of secularism enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The party highlights its historical role in advocating for secularism and social harmony, citing past judicial observations that recognized its contributions to these principles.
"Notwithstanding that the present petition appears to have been filed with oblique and questionable motives, the Applicant seeks to oppose the present challenge to Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Act, on the grounds that the POWA plays a pivotal role in furthering the right to freedom of religion and protects secularism, which is an established basic feature of the constitution. The instant petition challenges a legislation that both in form and substance safeguards fundamental rights and the basic features of the Constitution of India, including but not limited to secularism and fraternity. In such view, the Applicant seeks to make crucial submissions that support the outright dismissal of the present petition and accordingly humbly seeks to intervene on the following counts," the Application reads.
The Applicant argues that the POWA is essential to safeguarding communal harmony and preventing historical wrongs from being weaponized to oppress the present and future generations. It also emphasized that the Act aligns with Articles 25-28 of the Constitution, which guarantee freedom of religion and the preservation of secularism as a basic feature. "...since Article 13 bars Parliament from enacting laws in contravention of fundamental rights, Parliament was incompetent in enacting the POWA The said contention is patently flawed for the reason that POWA is not in contravention of any fundamental rights enumerated in part III of the Constitution. To the contrary, the POWA actualizes the right to freedom of religion and principles of secularism enshrined in Articles 25, 26, 27 and 28 of the Constitution," it states.
The Application also addresses the petitioner’s claims that the Act discriminates against certain communities, clarifying that the legislation applies equally to all places of worship, regardless of religious affiliation. The party argues that Parliament possessed the legislative competence to enact the POWA, as its subject matter falls under the Concurrent List (List III) of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
Citing the Supreme Court’s observations in the Ayodhya Dispute judgment, the applicant reiterates the importance of the POWA in promoting fraternity, secularism, and national unity. It also referred to a 2023 judgment dismissing a similar plea, where the Court emphasized that the history of a nation should not haunt future generations.
The party argues, "The present petition also erroneously states that the POWA is discriminatory as it is applicable only towards members of the Hindu, Sikh, Jain and Buddhist communities. A bare perusal of the POWA shows that it promotes equality amongst all religious groups and does not accord special treatment towards specific communities as alleged by the Petitioner. It is equally applicable towards places of worship of all religious groups and ascertains and affixes their nature as on 15.08.1947. In fact, Section 2(c) of the POWA categorically defines “place of worship” as “a temple, mosque, gurudwara, church, monastery or any other place of public religious worship of any religious denomination or any section thereof, by whatever name called”. Therefore, it is submitted that the Petitioner’s claim that preferential and discriminatory treatment is accorded towards particular communities is without any merit."
The Intervention Application seeks the Court’s permission to file written submissions and present arguments in defense of the POWA. The applicant contends that it is a necessary and proper party to the proceedings, given its pivotal role in the Act’s enactment and its commitment to upholding constitutional principles.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments on the intervention plea in the coming days.
Other Interventions In the Case
It is to be noted that, earlier this week, 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]
Click here to read/download Application
