The application, submitted through Advocate-on-Record Fauzia Shakil, asserts that the 1991 Act does not violate any fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution. In fact, it upholds the basic principles of the Constitution.
NEW DELHI: Manoj Kumar Jha, a Member of the Rajya Sabha from RJD, has filed an intervention application before the Supreme Court in the ongoing cases challenging the validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.
The application, submitted through Advocate-on-Record Fauzia Shakil, asserts that the 1991 Act does not violate any fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution. In fact, it upholds the basic principles of the Constitution.
Jha’s application emphasizes that the 1991 Act is a vital legislative measure that aligns with the objectives of the Indian Constitution, as enshrined in the Preamble and Articles 14, 15, 25, 26, and 51A. Furthermore, the Act has been recognized by the Supreme Court as essential for maintaining the nation’s secular values.
The Act ensures that all places of worship, as they existed on August 15, 1947, are protected and preserved by the State.
Jha also highlights the role of the Act in promoting the obligations of a secular State and affirming India’s commitment to religious equality. He argues that the Court should refrain from declaring the Act unconstitutional, as there is no justification for such a move.
The application further draws attention to the growing concerns over sectarian politics, which have led to the polarization of communities and increased threats to dissent and diversity. This trend of weaponizing religion and fostering divisiveness poses significant challenges to constitutional values, according to Jha.
The Places of Worship Act
The Places of Worship Act prohibits any alterations to the form of a place of worship, setting 15 August 1947 as the cutoff date.
The Supreme Court has formed a special bench to review the constitutionality of this law, with Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna leading the panel. Alongside him, Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Vishwanathan are also part of the bench.
This 1991 law did not apply to the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid dispute, as the case was already in the courts when the law was enacted. With the completion of the Ram Mandir, the dispute has now concluded.
The relevance of this law has gained new attention due to ongoing discussions regarding the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi, the Shahi Idgah Mosque in Mathura, and potential surveys of the Sambhal mosque in Uttar Pradesh and Ajmer Dargah in Rajasthan, raising questions about temple construction in these areas. The Supreme Court’s stance on this issue remains to be seen.
BRIEF FACTS
Previously, the lead petition (Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India) was filed in 2020, prompting the Court to issue a notice to the Union Government in March 2021. Other petitions have since been filed challenging the Act, which preserves the status quo of religious structures as they stood on August 15, 1947, and prohibits legal action seeking their conversion. The Union Government has yet to submit its counter-affidavit, despite receiving several extensions from the Court.
Additionally, several intervention applications have been filed by key stakeholders in the matter, including the Gyanvapi Mosque Managing Committee, NCP (SP) MLA Dr. Jitendra Satish Awhad, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), and the Mathura Shahi Idgah Masjid Committee.
The Gyanvapi Mosque Managing Committee’s application argues that it is a crucial party in the proceedings due to ongoing lawsuits seeking the removal of the mosque, despite the protection afforded by Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. MLA Awhad, representing the Mumbra-Kalwa region, has warned that any weakening of the Act could jeopardize efforts to rebuild communal trust in the area.
The CPI(M) has also filed an application emphasizing the Act’s role in preserving India’s secular fabric by preventing alterations to the religious character of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947, and averting potential conflicts arising from historical disputes.
