Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

Maharaja Kumari Krishna Priya-the daughter of Kashi Naresh Vibhuti Narayan Singh who is the current titular head of the erstwhile Royal Family of Kashi has filed an Intervention Application in the plea challenging the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 (the Act) before the Supreme Court. 

Krishna Priya has moved the application stating that since the former Ruler of the Princely State of Kashi was the Chief Patron of all Temples in Kashi, she, on behalf of the Kashi Royal Family, has the locus to challenge the vires of the Act on grounds of violation of Articles 25, 26, 29 and 32 of the Constitution.

"....it(the Act) deprives directly affected parties from approaching Courts of law to reclaim occupied religious sites through an evidence-based judicial process," the application states.

Along with Krishna Priya, a member of the Tuluva Vellalar community, which rebuilt the Kapaleeshwara Temple in Chennai after its destruction by the Portuguese and a Vaishnavaite man have also sought to intervene in the case before the Supreme Court. 

Krishna Priya has contended that since the Head of the Kashi Royal Family is traditionally recognized as the authority on the religious aspects of the Kashi Vishwanath Mandir, his family has the duty and right to seek reclamation of the disputed illegal structure known as the Razia Mosque, which is the original site of the Kashi Vishwanath Mandir.

As per the application, in addition to the Razia Mosque, the Royal family also seeks reclamation of the disputed illegal structure known as the Dhaurahra Mosque which was built by the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb after the destruction of the Bindu Madhav Mandir in 1682 at the Panchaganga Ghat in Varanasi.

Therefore, stating that since the top court has ordered that interested parties may only intervene in the pending Petition as opposed to preferring their independent Writ Petitions, Krishan Priya and the two other applicants have moved the present application. 

The applicants allege that the Places of Worship Act was passed in a haste without any prior consultation with the stakeholders with a premeditated intent to not subject the contents of the Act and its implications to a democratic and informed debate.

The intervention application states, "...the Impugned Act is a textbook instance of a legislation that was passed in the most undemocratic of manners possible, without any regard for the fundamental rights of affected parties,....After all, apart from rights under Articles 25, 29 and 32 of the Constitution of India, the issue of reclamation of religious sites also involves the question of title over the immovable property on which such sites are located. Perforce, stakeholders, it is submitted, have the legitimate expectation to be consulted before they are deprived of their ability to assert and enforce such rights".

The applicants contend that the impact and import of the impugned Act must be viewed and understood against the backdrop of Bharat’s history which has witnessed two successive waves of settler colonisation, Middle Eastern followed by European, that directly resulted in incalculable destruction of its religion, culture, heritage, knowledge production and dissemination structures, and economy, among other things.

"The Act is a textbook example of oikophobia/oikomisia and misautogeny i.e., hatred or contempt for one’s own people and culture," the plea reads. 

Further alleging that the Places of Worship Act stands in the way of the truth being laid bare through constitutional means before a court of law through evidence that is legally admissible, the applicants have sought to intervene in the matter before the top court. 

Several petitions have been moved before the Top Court challenging the provisions of the Places of Worship Act. The petitioners include Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay (Main petitioner), Advocate Chandra Shekhar, former Member of Parliament Chintamani Malviya, Swami Jeetendra Saraswatee, Devkinandan Thakurji, Anil Kabootra.

On July 29, the Court directed the petitioners, who later challenged the provisions of the Places of Worship Act 1991 later, to move intervention applications in the plea already pending before the court, challenging the same legislation. 

Apart from that, in June 2022, Jamait Ulama-I-Hind filed an impleadment application in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay's plea. Also, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board has moved an application in the same opposing the challenge. 

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Ors.