The Supreme Court will hear a plea Today (April 1) against a part of the 1991 law that freezes religious identity of worship places as of 1947. The petition argues that courts should be allowed to verify original religious character through legal and scientific means.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India will hear an important case Today, April 1, regarding a challenge to a part of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. This law says that all religious places in India must remain the same as they were on August 15, 1947, and no one is allowed to change their religious nature.
According to the official cause list for April 1, this plea will be heard by a bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar.
The 1991 Act strictly prohibits changing the nature of any religious place, whether it’s a temple, mosque, church, or any other place of worship. It protects the religious identity of every such place as it was on India’s Independence Day in 1947.
However, the famous Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case in Ayodhya was not included in this law.
Now, this new plea filed by a law student named Nitin Upadhyay, asks the Supreme Court to allow courts in India to check and decide what the original religious nature of any worship place was.
The plea directly challenges Section 4(2) of the Act, which stops any legal action or new cases that seek to change the religious identity of any place.
In the petition, it is clearly said:
“The Centre has transgressed its legislative power in barring the judicial remedy, which is a basic feature of the Constitution. It is well established that the right to judicial remedy by filing suit in a competent court, cannot be barred and the power of courts cannot be abridged and such denial has been held to be violative of basic feature of the Constitution, beyond legislative power.”
This plea has been filed with the help of advocate Shweta Sinha. It argues that the law only talks about keeping the religious identity the same, but it does not stop anyone from changing the structure or building of such places.
It clearly says:
“Structural change is permissible to restore the original religious character of the place.”
Also, the petition points out that the law does not stop any scientific or historical survey that could help find out the true religious nature of a place.
It says the Act never blocked:
“any scientific or documentary survey to ascertain the religious character of the place.”
Earlier, in February 2025, the Supreme Court had shown concern about so many petitions being filed against this 1991 Act. The court said a three-judge bench would hear all these matters together in April.
Still, the court said that those who had new legal arguments could file an application to join the ongoing cases.
Also, in an earlier order dated December 12, 2024, the top court had temporarily stopped about 18 different lawsuits. These cases were filed by various Hindu groups, asking for surveys of around 10 mosques to know their original religious identity.
These mosques include some very well-known places like:
- Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi
- Shahi Idgah Masjid in Mathura
- Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal, where four people died in clashes
This case is expected to be very important, as it will decide whether or not courts can check the true religious nature of worship places and whether this 1991 law is valid under the Constitution or not.
EARLIER IN APEX COURT
The Supreme Court of India on Feb 17 raised concerns about the large number of intervention applications being filed in the case that challenges the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar expressed that there should be some restrictions on such intervention applications.
“We will not take up the Places of Worship Act matter today. It is a three-judge Bench matter. Too many petitions filed. List sometime in March-April. There is a limit to interventions being filed,”
-CJI Khanna.
Several political parties and leaders have submitted intervention applications in this case, including the Congress Party, CPI(ML), Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind, and All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen (AIMIM) leader Asaduddin Owaisi.
These parties and leaders have stood in favor of the 1991 Act and have opposed the petitions that challenge its validity.
“Too many petitions filed. There is a limit to interventions being filed.”:
-Supreme Court.
Expressing displeasure over several fresh pleas, the Supreme Court on Monday said a three-judge bench will hear in April the only post-notice pending petitions related to validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 which mandates the religious character of a place to be maintained as it existed on August 15, 1947.
The top court, however, granted liberty to the petitioners like Samajwadi Party leader and Kairana MP Iqra Choudhary, who have filed the pleas recently and notices have not been issued on them, to file applications for intervention in pending ones by citing new legal grounds.
Dismissing fresh petitions, on which notices were not issued yet, bench said,
“The writ petitioners can file an (intervention) application raising new grounds.”
This case has attracted nationwide attention as it involves the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which was enacted to maintain the religious character of places of worship as they were on August 15, 1947. The Act prohibits changing the religious identity of any place of worship, except for the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute, which was already pending in court at the time.
The Supreme Court’s decision to put a cap on intervention applications reflects its concern about the increasing number of petitions, which could potentially delay the case.
The matter is now set to be heard in April by a 3-judge Bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, along with Justices Sanjay Kumar and K V Viswanathan.
Why the Delay?
During Feb 17’s proceedings, the CJI bench indicated that due to the large number of petitions involved, the matter could not be taken up immediately.
The court emphasized that a structured approach was required for framing the key legal questions before moving forward with substantive hearings.
“Given the large number of petitions, we will have to schedule a hearing in March, which will also include the framing of questions.”
-the court reportedly stated.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court to Hear Crucial Pleas on Places of Worship Act Today (Feb 17)
Background on the Case
The Places of Worship Act, 1991, enacted during the tenure of Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao, prohibits the conversion of religious places of worship from their status as of August 15, 1947.
The law seeks to uphold the secular character of India by maintaining the religious identity of places of worship, with an exception carved out for the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute.
Over the years, several petitions have been filed challenging the constitutional validity of the Act, arguing that it violates fundamental rights, including the right to equality (Article 14) and freedom of religion (Article 25).
Some petitioners also contend that the law restricts the rights of Hindus to reclaim religious sites that were allegedly altered or encroached upon before 1947.
ALSO READ: CJI Sanjiv Khanna To Take Up Today (Dec 12) Validity of Places of Worship Act
The Act prevents the conversion of any place of worship and ensures that religious sites maintain their original character as they were on August 15, 1947.
However, the law does not apply to the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute in Ayodhya.
Several petitions have challenged the validity of certain provisions of the 1991 law. Some parties argue that the Act violates fundamental rights, while others demand its strict enforcement to maintain religious harmony.
On January 2, the Supreme Court decided to examine a petition by AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi, who sought proper enforcement of the Places of Worship Act. Additionally, on December 12, a bench led by the Chief Justice ordered that no new lawsuits regarding religious sites should be entertained by any court, nor should any existing court cases issue interim or final orders until the Supreme Court delivers its ruling.
ALSO READ: CJI Khanna Hearing On Pleas Challenging Places Of Worship Act Today (Dec 5)
“As the matter is sub judice before this court, we deem it appropriate to direct that, though fresh suits may be filed, no suits would be registered and no proceedings shall be undertaken therein till further orders of this court,”
-the bench ruled.
This decision put a hold on around 18 lawsuits filed by various Hindu groups. These lawsuits sought permission to survey religious sites, including:
- Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi
- Shahi Idgah Masjid in Mathura
- Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal (where four people lost their lives in recent clashes)
The main issue before the Supreme Court revolves around Sections 3 and 4 of the 1991 Act:
- Section 3: Prohibits the conversion of religious sites.
- Section 4: Declares the religious character of places of worship and restricts courts from intervening.
There are cross petitions regarding the implementation of the law:
- Hindu groups argue that several mosques were originally temples destroyed by past invaders and should be restored.
- Muslim organizations, including the Gyanvapi Mosque Committee, oppose these claims and want the Supreme Court to uphold the 1991 law.
The mosque committee pointed out that such disputes have been raised over multiple mosques and shrines, including:
- Shahi Idgah Masjid in Mathura
- Quwwat-ul-Islam Masjid near Qutub Minar in Delhi
- Kamal Maula Mosque in Madhya Pradesh
With communal harmony and constitutional questions at stake, the Supreme Court’s decision on this matter is expected to have a significant impact across the country.igious groups, historians, and legal experts weighing in on its impact.
Case Title:
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors. & other connected matters
[W.P.(C) No. 001246 /2020] and connected cases.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on CJI Sanjeev Khanna
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
