Supreme Court: 'Supreme' challenge given to some provisions of Places of Worship Special Provisions Act; CJI's bench will hear today

Posted on 12th Dec 2024 by rohit kumar

The Supreme Court will hear on Thursday a batch of PILs challenging the validity of certain provisions of the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which prohibits filing a suit to reclaim a place of worship or to seek a change in its character from the form prevailing on August 15, 1947.

 

A special bench of CJI Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice KV Vishwanathan may hear the matter. Several petitions are pending in the apex court, including one filed by Ashwini Upadhyay, who has prayed that sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 be struck down. The petitioner says that these three sections violate Articles 14,15, 21, 25,26, and 29 of the Indian Constitution. According to the petition, all these are against the basic spirit and preamble of our Constitution. One of the various reasons presented was the argument that these provisions take away the right of judicial remedy to reclaim the place of worship of an individual or religious group.

 

This law was brought by the PV Narasimha Rao government.

 

In 1991, the then Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao's government brought the Places of Worship Act. According to this law, a place of worship of any religion that came into existence before 15 August 1947 cannot be converted into a place of worship of another religion. If someone tries to do so, he can be imprisoned for one to three years and fined. The Ayodhya case was in court at that time, so it was kept out of this law.

 

Section two of this law says that if any petition or other proceedings regarding the change in the character of any religious place existing on 15 August 1947 are pending in any court, tribunal, or other authority, then it will be closed. At the same time, Section 3 of the Act prohibits the conversion of a place of worship completely or partially into a place of worship of another religion. Even Section 3 of the Act prohibits the full or partial conversion of a place of worship of any religious sect into a place of worship of a different religious sect or a different section of the same religious sect.

 

Section 4 (1) says that the character of a place of worship on 15 August 1947 must be maintained as it was. At the same time, Section 4 (2) talks about stopping those cases, appeals, and legal proceedings that were pending on the date of implementation of the Places of Worship Act. Along with this, this section also prohibits the filing of any new case. Section 5 of this law says that the Places of Worship Act will not apply to the cases related to Ram Janmabhoomi.

 

Why was this law made?

 

The Ram Mandir movement was at its peak in the 1990s. Due to the growing influence of the Ram Mandir movement, many temple-mosque disputes started arising along with Ayodhya. To put an end to these disputes, the then Narasimha Rao government had brought this law.

 

At least two petitions challenging this law are pending in the court. One of these petitions is from Vishwa Bhadra Pujari Purohit Mahasangh of Lucknow and some other people of Sanatan Dharma. The second petition has been filed by BJP leader and lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay. Both petitions are pending in the Supreme Court.

 

The petitioners say that this law prohibits judicial review. Which is a basic feature of the Constitution. Along with this, this law also imposes an arbitrary irrational cutoff date which reduces the rights of the followers of Hindu, Jain, Buddhist, and Sikh religions.

 

Is this law being opposed for the first time?

 

When the Central Government brought this law in July 1991, even then the BJP had opposed it in the Parliament. At that time, Arun Jaitley in Rajya Sabha and Uma Bharti in Lok Sabha had demanded that the matter be sent to the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC).

 

After the Ayodhya verdict, once again claims are being made about 100 places of worship across the country, including Kashi and Mathura, to be temple land, but due to the 1991 law, the claimants cannot go to court. The Muslim side is saying that this law has been violated in Gyanvapi.