Supreme Court To Hear Petitions Challenging Provisions Of Places Of Worship Act On December 12

The Supreme Court has announced a three-judge Special Bench to hear a series of petitions challenging the validity of certain provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.

The Act prohibits filing lawsuits to reclaim a place of worship or change its character from what it was on August 15, 1947.

Photo Credit: PTI

According to the cause list published on the Supreme Court's website, a Special Bench, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and including Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan, will hear the matter on December 12, reported IANS.

In March 2021, a Bench led by then-Chief Justice SA Bobde had sought a response from the Centre regarding a plea filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, challenging the validity of certain provisions of the law.

The plea argued that, "The 1991 Act was enacted under the guise of 'Public order', which is a State subject (Schedule-7, List-II, Entry-1), and 'places of pilgrimages within India' is also a State subject (Schedule-7, List-II, Entry-7). Therefore, the Centre cannot enact the law. Moreover, Article 13(2) prohibits the State from making a law that infringes fundamental rights, but the 1991 Act undermines the rights of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs to restore their 'places of worship and pilgrimages', destroyed by barbaric invaders."

It further stated, "The Act excludes the birthplace of Lord Rama but includes the birthplace of Lord Krishna, even though both are incarnations of Lord Vishnu, the creator, and are equally worshipped worldwide, making it arbitrary."

Meanwhile, the Managing Committee of the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi has approached the Supreme Court, seeking the dismissal of the petitions against the Places of Worship Act. They argue that the consequences of declaring the 1991 Act unconstitutional would be severe, undermining the rule of law and communal harmony.

The petition asserts, "An Article 32 petition challenging a legislative enactment must demonstrate the unconstitutionality of the provisions based on constitutional principles. Rhetorical arguments seeking retribution for the perceived actions of past rulers cannot serve as the basis for a constitutional challenge."

It added, "The Parliament, in its wisdom, enacted this legislation as a recognition of the secular values of the Constitution. The applicant humbly submits that, while the Hon'ble Court considers this challenge to the 1991 Act, the petition should be dismissed as lacking merit."

The application further explained, "It was only after thorough deliberation and debate that Parliament, in its legislative competence, enacted the 1991 Act as a conscious decision to prevent the past from haunting the future of the country. This Act embodies the preambular values of secularism and fraternity."

"Almost three decades after the enactment of the 1991 Act, the petitioner seeks to challenge it through a petition filled with rhetorical and communal claims that should not be entertained by this Hon'ble Court," the application stated.

It warned that "the consequences of the declaration sought by the petitioner would be drastic. As seen recently in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, where a court allowed a survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid after an ex parte application was filed, the incident led to widespread violence and reportedly claimed at least six lives. The declaration sought by the petitioner would cause similar disputes to arise across the country, ultimately undermining the rule of law and communal harmony."

The application also noted that the Managing Committee of the Gyanvapi Mosque is the subject of numerous strategically crafted suits seeking the right to worship within the mosque, calling it an ancient temple. Some of these suits seek the removal of the mosque's structure and an injunction preventing Muslims from using it.

"However, a common thread running through all these cases is that they are subject to the restrictions of Sections 3 and 4 of the 1991 Act. Therefore, the applicant is a crucial stakeholder in the challenge and seeks to assist the Hon'ble Court through the present intervention," the application concluded.

It also pointed out that, at present, approximately 20 suits are pending before various courts in Varanasi, aiming to nullify the protection granted by the 1991 Act and to alter the character of the Gyanvapi Mosque, thereby preventing Muslims from accessing it.