The Communist Party of India (CPI) has approached the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf Amendment Act. The party argues that the law “violates the constitutional rights of the Muslim community and undermines the independence of Waqf Boards.”
Supreme Court Today (April 1) declined to accept a new plea questioning the 1947 religious status lock under the Places of Worship Act. Petitioner allowed to apply in ongoing cases but court says, “We are not willing to interfere.”
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.
The Supreme Court Today (Feb 17) expressed concern over excessive intervention applications in the Places of Worship Act, 1991 case, delaying the hearing to April. “Too many petitions filed. There is a limit to interventions being filed.”
The Supreme Court Today (Feb 17) expressed concern over excessive intervention applications in the Places of Worship Act, 1991 case, delaying the hearing to April. “Too many petitions filed. There is a limit to interventions being filed.”
A bench led by CJI Sanjiv Khanna Today (Feb 17) in Supreme Court will hear petitions challenging the 1991 law, which protects the religious character of places of worship as of August 15, 1947.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court will hear multiple petitions related to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, on February 17. According to the official cause list uploaded on the Supreme Court’s website, a bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, along with Justices Sanjay Kumar and K V Viswanathan, will oversee the proceedings.
Today, On 12th December, the Supreme Court instructed all courts to refrain from handling cases regarding surveys of religious sites under the Places of Worship Act, 1991. This decision seeks to maintain communal harmony and secularism while reviewing several petitions challenging the Act’s provisions, emphasizing legal consistency and caution in sensitive matters.
