The Supreme Court will hear petitions challenging the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, today. The apex court has formed a special bench for the hearing, comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice K.V. Vishwanathan. This hearing comes amidst growing interest and discussions surrounding the law and its implications.
The law in question mandates that the religious character of places of worship that existed on August 15, 1947, must remain unchanged. It prohibits filing any lawsuit or making claims to alter the religious character of these places. The law has been a point of contention in several ongoing cases, with petitions questioning its constitutional validity.
One such petition has been filed by Ashwini Upadhyay, who has requested the Supreme Court to annul Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Act. Upadhyay argues that these provisions deprive individuals or religious groups of their judicial right to claim and assert their rights over places of worship. He believes that these sections prevent any legal recourse to challenge or alter the religious character of such places.
Meanwhile, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and Maharashtra MLA Jitendra Satish Avhad have also filed petitions challenging the law’s constitutional validity. They argue that the Act upholds the public order, fraternity, unity, and secularism in the country, providing a necessary safeguard for national integrity and harmony.
The Supreme Court’s hearing is set against the backdrop of several legal cases filed in various courts. These include disputes over the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi, the Shahi Idgah Mosque in Mathura, and the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal, where it has been claimed that these mosques were built after the destruction of ancient temples. In these cases, petitioners have requested permission for Hindus to worship at these sites, arguing that the mosques were built on the ruins of temples.
On the other hand, the Muslim side has invoked the 1991 Act, asserting that such cases should not be entertained under the law. In addition, former Rajya Sabha member Subramanian Swamy has filed a petition challenging certain provisions of the Act, seeking a re-interpretation that would allow Hindus to claim rights over the Gyanvapi and Shahi Idgah mosques in Varanasi and Mathura, respectively. Upadhyay, however, maintains that the entire law is unconstitutional and that there is no need for any reinterpretation.
The outcome of today’s hearing could have significant implications for the ongoing legal battles surrounding religious sites in India.
