Today, On 12th December, Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna will hear petitions today (Dec 12) challenging the validity of the Places of Worship Act. Several citizens, including notable figures, support the Act, highlighting its importance in upholding secularism and ensuring communal harmony. They argue the law addresses historical instances of temple demolitions across faiths and prevents potential conflicts. The challenge, they claim, disregards these precedents and risks igniting communal tensions.
New Delhi: Petitions challenging the Places of Worship Act, a diverse group of citizens, including academicians, historians, former IAS and IPS officers, and political leaders, filed applications backing the law.
A Special Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, is set to review challenges to the Places of Worship Act on December 12.
These petitions, mainly submitted by Hindu plaintiffs, question the religious status of various mosques and the Ajmer dargah, with some advocates seeking to reclaim former temples.
The Places of Worship Act establishes that the character of religious sites must be maintained as they were on August 15, 1947, prohibiting any alterations to their status.
They argued that the Act is essential for safeguarding secularism and promoting communal harmony. The applicants stated that claims regarding the demolition of Hindu temples to create mosques overlook historical complexities, noting that Hindu kings also destroyed temples and shrines of conquered territories.
In countering the assertion that certain mosques were built by demolishing Hindu temples during the Mughal invasions, they suggested that such claims could lead to endless disputes, as many Hindu temples were constructed atop Buddhist stupas, potentially giving Buddhists grounds to reclaim their sites. The group emphasized that the Act aims to resolve historical controversies and maintain peace.
Prominent figures supporting the Act included former Punjab DGP Julio Ribeiro, former chief information commissioner Wajahat Habibullah, retired Lt Gen Zamiruddin Shah, and noted historians like Romila Thapar and Mridula Mukherjee, among others. They collectively argued that the 1991 Act serves to preserve India’s social fabric and prevent the reopening of settled religious issues.
Contrarily, some applications were filed in favor of scrapping the Act. The Delhi-based NGO Hindu Shree Foundation contended that the Act is arbitrary and unjustifiable, particularly its cut-off date of August 15, 1947. They argued that it violates the rights of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs to practice their religions and limits their ability to seek judicial remedies regarding religious properties.
Former MP Chintamani Malviya described the Act as unconstitutional and violative of secular principles, asserting that it infringes upon the rights of various religious communities. He highlighted that the Act impedes judicial review, a fundamental aspect of the Constitution.
In a joint plea, Ribeiro, Habibullah, and other former officials criticized the petitioners for what they termed a “strong majoritarian and anti-minorities bias,” which contradicts constitutional values.
They pointed out that historical records show numerous instances of religious conflicts among various sects prior to the Islamic era.
Their application argued that the Act was established to prevent historical grievances from disrupting future generations and is crucial for maintaining communal harmony.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
