The lead petitioner, BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, contends that specific provisions of the Act violate constitutional principles and the secular fabric of the nation, while also denying judicial remedies for alleged historical wrongs.
NEW DELHI: The ruling party of Tamil Nadu, the DMK, approached the Supreme Court seeking to join the proceedings in a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship Act, 1991. The Act mandates maintaining the status quo of religious sites as they stood on August 15, 1947.
The case is being heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan, with multiple petitions filed both in support of and against the Act.
The Places of Worship Act has gained prominence in recent debates over disputes involving temples and mosques, such as the Gyanvapi Masjid and Sambhal mosque cases.
The lead petitioner, BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, contends that specific provisions of the Act violate constitutional principles and the secular fabric of the nation, while also denying judicial remedies for alleged historical wrongs.
DMK, represented by Senior Advocate P. Wilson, has sought to support the Act’s validity before the Supreme Court.
In a significant directive issued on Thursday, the Supreme Court restrained all courts across the country from entertaining or passing orders in lawsuits seeking relief under the 1991 Act, including requests for surveys of religious sites.
The bench stated, “We are examining the vires, contours, and ambit of the 1991 Act,” and directed that no new suits be filed or registered until further orders.
Background
Six petitions have been filed in connection with the Places of Worship Act, 1991, including those by the World Bhadra Pujari Purohit Federation, Dr. Subramanian Swamy, Ashwini Upadhyay, and the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind. While some petitioners are challenging the validity of the Act, the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind has submitted a petition supporting it.
Recently, the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind sought an expedited hearing from the Supreme Court following a lower court’s ruling. The matter arose from a court-ordered survey conducted at the historic Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal.
The Places of Worship Act, 1991, prohibits altering the religious character of any place of worship and mandates its preservation as it stood on August 15, 1947. Hindu petitioners first challenged the Act’s constitutionality in the Supreme Court in 2020, while the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind filed its petition in favor of the law in 2022.
Previous Hearing
During Supreme Court proceedings, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna made notable observations and issued important directions. Stressing the importance of maintaining decorum, he remarked, “No one shall address us without being asked.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta requested more time to file an affidavit, prompting the CJI to instruct, “Whatever needs to be submitted, please file a reply and provide a copy to the petitioners.” However, he clarified that e-copies of replies would not be made available online.
The CJI emphasized procedural compliance, stating, “We cannot proceed until the reply is filed. If anyone has concerns, we will address them as they arise.”
He further directed, “Until the next date of hearing, no additional suits shall be registered,” clarifying that while filing additional suits is permitted, their registration is temporarily stayed.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh commented that no issues regarding vires existed. In response, the CJI noted that the order sheet reflected multiple issues raised, necessitating further scrutiny.
Discussing ongoing cases, the CJI acknowledged awareness of two suits, including the Mathura case, and inquired about the total number of similar suits. Senior Counsel informed the court that ten sites were involved. Addressing third-party interventions, the Solicitor General questioned if third parties could seek a stay in intra-party suits. The CJI clarified that the court remained open to all parties and affirmed that everyone has the right to be heard, though the immediate focus was on two suits.
Specifically, in the Mathura case, arguments under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) were noted. Senior Counsel urged the court to halt surveys in ongoing suits, a matter still under deliberation. The Gyanvapi case also featured in the discussion, with counsels pointing out its relevance, which the CJI acknowledged.
Senior Advocate Hansaria highlighted that the matters listed included challenges to constitutionality. The CJI also referred to a writ petition seeking enforcement of the Act and sought clarification on the total number of pending suits.
