Worship Act 1991 violates fundamental rights of Hindus and their God: Hindu side claims - Worship Act 1991

Whether Gyanvapi is a temple or a mosque, this dispute is in the court. The survey is going on there on the orders of the Varanasi court, but the Muslim parties want this survey to be closed and the status quo should be maintained, that is, as it was going on.

SM Yasin, the secretary-in-charge of the Muslim party Anjuman Intrajaiya Committee, says, \'It is not us, India\'s Places of Worship Act says - the religious places in which they were at the time of August 15, 1947, will remain the same, even if someone sues, he will be rejected in court. The Muslim party has given an application to the Supreme Court to stop the survey on this basis.

Why question on Places of Worship Act?

The Hindu party, i.e. Hindu Sena, has intervened in this application and filed an intervention PIL. Its president Vishnu Gupta says, \'This act closes the doors of the court for us, if we do not go to court, then where will we appeal against the injustice done to us in the past.\'

So is this act provoking us to take up sticks? What after Gyanvapi? Gupta says, \'Qutub Minar, Mathura, Aligarh...all those religious places that were demolished and converted.\'

The fundamental right of \'God\' is also violated by this act!

As a representative of Hindu Sena, a petition was filed in the Supreme Court in December 2020 by former BJP spokesperson Advocate Ashwani Upadhyay to repeal the Worship Act.

The petition says, \'The Worship Act-1991 is a violation of fundamental rights not only of Hindus but also of their God. This Act also discriminates between Krishna and Rama, Shiva and Rama.

First- God has also got rights in the constitution, he has been considered a judicial person. Like the Ayodhya case was fought in the name of Ram Lalla Virajman. Similarly, Krishna is seated in Mathura, and Shiva is seated in Kashi. Why won\'t Shiva when Ram got his right? Is discrimination between those who are called judicial persons in the constitution not a violation of the constitution?

Second- There are many other provisions in our constitution, according to which God also has the property right. For example, just as Ram Lalla is seated in Ayodhya, so wherever there are deities, who have the right to their place. Therefore, there is no reason to stop the survey. If Shiva is found there, then it will be considered his property.

Hindu-Muslim, both have to prove, whose place

Advocate Upadhyay says, \'In the Worship Act 1991, first of all, it has to be proved a whose place of worship is?

When it comes to proving a place of worship since we are a secular country, then the rules of Hindus, Muslims, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs will not be common, they will be based on their different beliefs. As Hindu law says - once the life of God is established at someplace, then it is a temple till he is immersed. The immersion of Ganesh and Durga all is based on this belief.

According to Islamic law, there are 3 grounds for having a mosque- First- a mosque can be built in a place that is absolutely virgin, like a field. Second - there should not be a brick structure there, or that land has been bought from someone, or third - that land has been donated by someone.

Advocate Upadhyay says, \'Now the Muslim side has to prove which of these three grounds is the basis of having a mosque in Gyanvapi. It also has to be proved when we immersed our Shiva, which later became his mosque.

SM Yasin of the Arrangement Committee says, \'We have put our application in the highest court of the country. They have to decide. This country will run according to the law or based on the agenda of some people, this court will decide. Aadhaar will be decided in the court, not outside it.

What is the basis of the petition challenging the Worship Act?

Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay says, \'This law says that the place which was in its religious form at the time of August 15, 1947, will continue to be the same. If any case against him is filed in the court then it will be automatically dismissed. That is, it closes the doors of the court. This means that it encourages mob lynching. Whoever has numbers, sticks, and sticks, this law will be with him.

This law was made by the Congress government at the Center when PV Narasimha Rao was the PM. It was argued at that time that this law is being made to maintain public order.

But the constitution says that the matter of maintaining public order lies with the state and not with the Centre. This law proves to be wrong in its first step itself.

There are clear instructions in the constitution regarding pilgrimage places. The center will make laws on the religious places which are abroad, but the state will make laws regarding the religious places and places of pilgrimage in the state.

For example, Nankana Saheb will make law centers related to Kailash Mansarovar, while Kashi, Gyanvapi, Jama Masjid, Atala, and Bhadrakali will make state laws for them. So one thing is clear the 1991 law cannot make the center according to the constitution.

The Hindu Sena and the Pending Petition in the Supreme Court cited these articles of the Constitution

Articles 14 (Equal rights for all before the Constitution) and 15 (Cannot be discriminated against based on caste, religion, place of birth, and ancestry), so if the Judicial Person Ram got the right then why Shiva would not get it?

Also Read: Delhi Jama Masjid Survey: Hindu organizations claimed on Delhi\'s Jama Masjid, said- will go to court to conduct the survey