Places of Worship Act: SC takes exception to filing of fresh petitions by political parties and leaders

As various political parties and leaders filed fresh petitions in a case related to validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, the Supreme Court on Monday took exception to it, saying there was a limit to it.

Advertisement

“There is a limit to which petitions can be filed. Enough is enough. There has to be an end to this… Too many petitions filed,” a Bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar said after several lawyers urged the Bench to allow new intervention applications in the matter.

"We will not take up the Places of Worship Act matter today. It’s a three-judge Bench matter. List it sometime in March," the Bench said and went on to post the matter for hearing in April.

The top court dismissed petitions in which no notice had been issued, even as it gave liberty to petitioners to file applications raising additional grounds in the ongoing matter wherein it’s seized of petitions challenging certain petitions of the 1991 Act and those seeking implementation of the controversial law.

Enacted by Parliament during the PV Narasimha Rao Government in the backdrop of the Ayodhya Ram Mandir agitation, this Act freezes the religious character of a place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947, except that of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid, which was demolished by ‘karsevaks’ on December 6, 1992. Following a Supreme Court verdict, a Ram temple has been constructed at Ayodhya.

However, with regard to other disputed religious sites, including the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah at Mathura and Kashi Vishwanath–Gyanvapi Mosque, the Act continues to operate as a bar against any possible change in the character of the religious structures. Any place of worship, which is an ancient and historical monument or an archaeological site covered by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, is exempted from the purview of the Act.

The Supreme Court had on December 12, 2024, restrained trial courts across India from registering fresh suits and ordering surveys or passing any effective and final orders with regard to religious character of existing religious structures in already pending suits.

The stay order meant that in pending suits regarding the Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi mosque dispute, Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute at Mathura, Sambhal Jama Masjid, Bhojshala and Ajmer Sharif dargah disputes, courts cannot pass any effective or final orders, including those for surveys.

The Bench had, however, refused to stay the proceedings in 18 suits already pending with regard to 10 places of worship/mosques/dargahs. It had clarified that it was examining the validity as well as ambit of the 1991 law.

The Bench had asked the Centre and other respondents to file their replies in four weeks. On Monday, senior advocates Vikas Singh, Rakesh Dwivedi and others, representing various parties, pointed out that despite issuance of notice the Centre hasn’t filed its response in the matter.

Since the December 12, 2024, stay order, several petitions have been filed, including those by AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi, Samajwadi Party leader and Kairana MP Iqra Choudhary and the Congress Party, seeking effective implementation of the 1991 Act.

Several politicians, including CPI(M) leader Prakash Karat and RJD MP Manoj Jha, had already moved the Supreme Court in support of the Act and the court had allowed their impleadment applications.

NCP (Sharad Pawar) MLA Jitendra Satish Awhad and Indian Union Muslim League leaders PK Kunhalikutty and ET Muhammed Basheer, too, had moved the top court to hear the party before taking a call on the validity of the Act.

There are several petitions, including those filed by Akhil Bhartiya Sant Samiti, advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay and former Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy, against certain provisions of the 1991 Act. Some of the petitions have been pending since 2020.

The petitioners alleged that it created an “arbitrary and irrational retrospective cut-off date” of August 15, 1947, for maintaining the character of the places of worship or pilgrimage against encroachments done by “fundamentalist-barbaric invaders and law-breakers”.

In June 2022, the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind moved the Supreme Court seeking dismissal of petitions challenging the validity of the Act, saying it will open floodgates of litigation against countless mosques across India.

The Gyanvapi Mosque Management Committee too has moved the top court to oppose petitions against the validity of the Act, saying historical wrongs or perceived injustices of the past should not undermine the principles of secularism and non-retrogression upheld by the Act.