The Anjuman Intezamia Masjid committee has petitioned the Supreme Court to uphold the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which they argue is vital for maintaining communal harmony and secularism. They warn that ongoing legal challenges to mosques risk reigniting historical disputes and threaten social peace. The case’s outcome may significantly impact future religious claims.
New Delhi: The Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masjid, managing the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi, has moved the Supreme Court seeking intervention in petitions challenging the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The committee has emphasized the significance of the Act in preserving communal harmony and protecting secular values.
The Gyanvapi Mosque committee stated that it was compelled to intervene due to the growing trend of misinterpreting and undermining the Act by filing multiple suits against mosques. These suits, the committee argued, disregard the core purpose of the Act and often seek interim surveys of mosques even before addressing foundational legal questions.
“The Act was being misinterpreted and undermined through the filing of suits against mosques,”
the committee noted in its plea.
The committee heavily relied on the Supreme Court’s landmark Ram Janmabhoomi judgment, arguing that it supports the validity of the Places of Worship Act.
The petition emphasized that the judgment upheld the principle of non-retrogression, a cornerstone of secularism and the Constitution’s basic structure. Non-retrogression implies that a government cannot reduce existing protections once they have been established.
The committee stated,
“The verdict had left no manner of doubt as to the reasons for the enactment and the provisions being a core component of the principle of non-retrogression and secular values.”
Responding to claims that some mosques were constructed on the sites of ancient temples, the committee argued that such disputes cannot be addressed through the Supreme Court or the judiciary. It referred to the Ram Janmabhoomi judgment, which ruled that historical actions by rulers cannot form the basis for contemporary legal claims.
The committee warned about the potential consequences of reopening historical disputes, highlighting the recent violence in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh. In November, clashes erupted over a survey of the Mughal-era Shahi Jama Masjid, following claims that it was once a Harihar temple.
The plea stated,
“The declaration sought by the petitioner would mean such disputes rising their heads in every nook and corner of the country and ultimately obliterating the rule of law and communal harmony.”
The committee urged the Supreme Court to honor the intent of Parliament, which enacted the Places of Worship Act in 1991 to ensure communal harmony and focus on the future.
“The Parliament, in its wisdom and legislative competence, enacted the 1991 Act as a conscious decision to let the past not haunt the future of the country,”
the plea added.
The Gyanvapi Mosque has been at the center of controversy since 2021, when Hindu activists claimed that the mosque was built after demolishing a temple on the orders of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb. The Muslim side has consistently denied these allegations.
Key developments include:
- February 2023: A Varanasi court allowed Hindu devotees to worship inside the sealed basement of the mosque at ‘Vyas Ka Tekhana.’
- October 2023: The same court rejected a plea by Hindu petitioners seeking an additional survey by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) of the entire Gyanvapi complex.
The committee’s plea is a strong reminder of the importance of preserving the secular fabric of the nation. It highlights how the Places of Worship Act, 1991, stands as a legislative effort to protect the country from divisive historical debates and ensure a peaceful coexistence of diverse communities.
As the Supreme Court deliberates on the matter, its decision could set a critical precedent for balancing historical grievances with contemporary communal harmony.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
