Today, On 12th December, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, addressing the ongoing deliberations on the Places of Worship Act, 1991, stated, “No additional suits shall be registered until the next date of hearing.” The statement underscores the Supreme Court’s intent to maintain judicial propriety while the matter remains sub judice. The Act, which prohibits the alteration of religious structures as they stood on August 15, 1947, has drawn significant legal scrutiny. The court’s directive aims to prevent further complications as it examines the pending issues.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, issued an important directive concerning the ongoing discussions around the Places of Worship Act, 1991.
The Places of Worship Act, 1991, plays a vital role in prohibiting changes to religious structures that existed on August 15, 1947. Established to maintain communal harmony, the Act is currently facing legal challenges, with several petitions questioning its constitutionality. These petitions contend that the law limits certain groups’ rights to pursue legal remedies for historical grievances.
A Special Bench of the Supreme Court, which included Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, heard the case.
During the Supreme Court proceedings, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna made significant observations and directions. He emphasized that “No one shall address us without being asked,” highlighting the need for orderly conduct in the courtroom.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta sought additional time to file an affidavit, to which the CJI responded by directing, “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 further stated,
“We cannot proceed until the reply is filed. If anyone has concerns, we will address them as they arise,” indicating the court’s commitment to ensuring all procedural requirements are met before moving forward.
The CJI ordered,
“Until the next date of hearing, no additional suits shall be registered.”
However, filing further suits is not barred, only their registration is stayed.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh remarked that there was no issue regarding vires, to which the Chief Justice of India (CJI) noted that the order sheet indicated several issues had been raised, warranting further examination.
Addressing ongoing cases, the CJI mentioned being aware of two suits, including the Mathura case, and inquired about the total number of similar suits. Senior Counsel responded that ten sites were involved.
Regarding third-party involvement, the Solicitor General questioned whether a third party could seek a stay in intra-party suits. The CJI clarified that the court was not closing its doors to anyone and affirmed that everyone has the right to be heard, though the current focus was on two suits. Specifically discussing the Mathura case, the CJI noted that arguments were being heard under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). Senior Counsel argued for halting surveys in already filed suits, an issue under deliberation.\
The Gyanvapi case also came under consideration, with counsels highlighting its involvement, prompting acknowledgment from the CJI.
Senior Advocate Hansaria pointed out that the day’s listed matters included pleas challenging constitutionality, while the CJI also referred to a writ petition seeking enforcement of the Act and inquired about the total number of pending suits.
The Supreme Court’s deliberations reflect its commitment to ensuring fair hearings for all parties while upholding procedural integrity. With prominent cases like Mathura and Gyanvapi under scrutiny, the court’s directives and observations will significantly influence the trajectory of these important legal matters.
On January 9, 2023, the Supreme Court instructed the central government to respond to public interest litigations (PILs) challenging certain provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, granting it time until the end of February to submit its reply. The court is currently reviewing six petitions, including those filed by lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay and former Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy, who contest the law’s provisions.
Upadhyay has requested the court to invalidate Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Act, arguing that these sections eliminate the right to seek judicial remedies for reclaiming places of worship for individuals or religious groups. The Supreme Court has previously indicated that the validity of certain provisions could be referred to a five-judge Constitution bench for further examination.
Swamy has sought to have specific provisions “read down” to allow Hindus to assert claims over the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah Mosque in Mathura. In contrast, Upadhyay contends that the entire statute is unconstitutional, rendering the question of reading down irrelevant. The doctrine of reading down is typically employed to preserve a statute from being declared unconstitutional.
The Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, represented by Advocate Ejaz Maqbool, referred to the five-judge Constitution bench ruling in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title case, asserting that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, was addressed there and cannot be dismissed now. The petition claims that the 1991 law establishes an “arbitrary and irrational retrospective cut-off date” of August 15, 1947, for preserving the character of places of worship against encroachment by “fundamentalist-barbaric invaders and law-breakers.”
The Act prohibits the conversion of any place of worship and mandates the maintenance of the religious character of such places as they existed on August 15, 1947, along with related matters. It includes only one exception concerning the dispute over the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid in Ayodhya.
Read Also: CJI Sanjiv Khanna To Take Up Today (Dec 12) Validity of Places of Worship Act
The Place of Worship Act has been challenged by several petitioners, alleging it denies Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs the right to restore places of worship destroyed by historical invaders. While the Act is crucial for maintaining religious status quo, the Supreme Court granted the Union government additional time to clarify its position on these challenges.
The petitioners emphasized the need to stays surveys that could lead to increased communal tensions. “We seek to uphold the sanctity of the 1991 Act and ensure no actions contravene its principles,” stated a lawyer representing the petitioners.
The matter highlights the ongoing debate over balancing historical grievances with the need to preserve communal harmony and legal consistency across the country.