Blitz Bureau
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on December 12 ordered that no fresh suits would be registered under the Places of Worship Act in the country, and in the pending cases, no final or effective orders would be passed till further orders of the Apex Court.
A Special Bench headed by CJI Sajiv Khanna asked the Union Government to file within four weeks its reply to the clutch of petitions challenging the validity of the 1991 Act, which prohibits the filing of a lawsuit to reclaim a place of worship or seek a change in its character from what prevailed on August 15, 1947.
The Bench, also comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. V. Viswanathan, appointed advocates Kanu Agarwal, Vishnu Shankar Jain and Ejaz Maqbool as nodal counsel to make compilations of pleadings on behalf of the Union, the petitioners and the parties supporting the Act, respectively.
In March 2021, a Bench headed by then CJI S.A. Bobde sought the Centre’s response to the plea filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, challenging the validity of certain provisions of the law.
The plea said, “The 1991 Act was enacted in the garb of ‘Public order’, which is a State subject (Schedule-7, List-II, Entry-1) and ‘places of pilgrimages within India’ is also State subject (Schedule-7, List-II, Entry-7). So, the Centre can’t enact the Law. Moreover, Article 13(2) prohibits the State from making a law to take away fundamental rights but the 1991 Act takes away the rights of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs, to restore their ‘places of worship and pilgrimages’, destroyed by barbaric invaders.”
It further added, “The Act excludes the birthplace of Lord Rama but includes the birthplace of Lord Krishna, though both are incarnations of Lord Vishnu, the creator and equally worshipped throughout the world, hence it is arbitrary.”
Meanwhile, several intervention/impleadment applications have been moved before the Apex Court seeking the dismissal of the petitions against the Places of Worship Act.
In its application, the Managing Committee of Varanasi’s Gyanvapi Mosque said the “consequences of declaring the 1991 Act unconstitutional are bound to be drastic and will obliterate the rule of law and communal harmony”.
It said that an Article 32 petition challenging a legislative enactment must indicate the unconstitutionality of the provisions based on constitutional principles and the rhetorical arguments seeking a sort of retribution against the perceived acts of previous rulers cannot be made the basis for a constitutional challenge.
“As many as 20 suits are pending before different Varanasi courts seeking to nullify the protection accorded by the 1991 Act and to convert the character of the Gyanvapi Mosque and prevent access of Muslims to the mosque,” it said.
