SC forms special bench to hear pleas challenging Places of Worship Act

The three-judge bench will be led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna; hearing is set for December 12

The Supreme Court has constituted a special bench to hear petitions questioning the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. This law preserves the character and identity of religious sites as they stood on August 15, 1947.

 

The three-judge Bench will be led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, with Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan. The hearing is set for December 12 at 3:30 pm.

Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991

The Act consists of several critical provisions designed to uphold its objectives:

 

Prohibition of Conversion (Section 3): This section explicitly forbids the conversion of any place of worship from one religious denomination to another or even within different sects of the same religion. It aims to maintain the original religious identity of these places as they were on August 15, 1947.

 

Maintenance of Religious Character (Section 4): It asserts that the religious character of any place of worship must remain unchanged from its status on August 15, 1947. This provision effectively bars any legal proceedings concerning disputes over conversions that occurred after this date.

 

Exemptions: The Act does not apply to certain cases, including:

>The Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case.

>Ancient and historical monuments governed by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.

>Any disputes that were already settled or resolved through mutual agreement prior to the Act's commencement

The pleas challenging the Act

The case centres on several petitions challenging the legality of the 1991 Act. One of the petitioners, advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, argues that the law prevents Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs from reclaiming their religious sites, which were "invaded" and "encroached upon" by "fundamentalist barbaric invaders".

 

In response, Muslim organisations such as the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind have contended that these petitions, though framed as public interest petitions, should not be used to challenge a central law that has safeguarded the principles of fraternity and secularism, as well as the Basic Structure of the Constitution.

 

AIMPLB also highlighted that the Ayodhya judgment affirmed the significance of the 1991 Act, noting that it “speaks to our history and to the future of the nation... In preserving the character of places of public worship, Parliament has mandated in no uncertain terms that history and its wrongs shall not be used as instruments to oppress the present and the future.”

Involvement of the Gyanvapi mosque management

The management of the Gyanvapi mosque has also sought to intervene in the case. The Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi, which oversees the mosque, argued that claims rooted in “purported grievances” over actions of Mughal rulers cannot serve as valid grounds to challenge the 1991 Act.

 

The Gyanvapi mosque is at the heart of ongoing civil suits, with Hindu plaintiffs asserting the existence of a temple beneath the mosque and their right to worship there. A decisive ruling by the Supreme Court could resolve these suits seeking to “reclaim” ancient temples.

 

The Gyanvapi mosque management referenced the Ayodhya judgment, which held that the Supreme Court cannot entertain claims based on the actions of ancient rulers regarding Hindu places of worship. The Ram Janmabhoomi judgment noted that “for any person who seeks solace or recourse against the actions of any number of ancient rulers, the law is not the answer".

 

The Centre has yet to comment publicly, though it has indicated it will file a counter-affidavit in the ongoing challenge to the 1991 Act.

 

The formation of the special bench and the scheduled hearing coincide with intense judicial activity in state courts, particularly in Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, where local civil suits have questioned the origins and nature of mosques. A court in Rajasthan, for instance, issued a notice to the Ministry of Minority Affairs and the Archaeological Survey of India regarding a suit by a Hindu group claiming “historical evidence” that the Ajmer Sharif Dargah was built over a Shiva temple.

 

In Sambhal district, Uttar Pradesh, a civil court ordered a survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid, based on claims that it was built by Mughal emperor Babur in 1526 after demolishing a temple. The order led to violence, and the Supreme Court had to intervene, urging authorities to maintain peace.

The Gyanvapi Mosque survey

In August 2023, the Supreme Court did not halt a local court’s decision allowing the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to continue its "scientific investigation" of the Gyanvapi mosque premises, provided there was no excavation or damage to the site. A prior court-ordered survey had uncovered a “shivling” at the mosque.

 

Muslim representatives have criticised these legal actions and surveys as “salami tactics,” referring to the gradual nature of claims being made. Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, representing the Muslim parties in the Gyanvapi and Sambhal cases, has urged the court to enforce the Places of Worship Act to prevent such claims.

 

(With agency inputs)