Provisions violates principles of secularism, spiritual leader Devkinandan Thakur's PIL challenges Places of Worship Act before Supreme Court

A different Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court has challenged the provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provision) Act, 1991. The plea has alleged that the Act not only offends Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, and 29 of the Constitution of India but also violates the principles of secularism, which is an integral part of the Preamble and basic structure of the Constitution.

The PIL filed by spiritual leader Devkinandan Thakur submits that the Section 2 (Definitions), 3 (bars the conversion of places of worship), and 4 (bars filing any suit or initiating any other legal proceeding for a conversion of the religious character of any place of worship) of the Places of Worship Act offend the basic dictum of Hindu law enshrined in Vedas, Purans, Ramayan, Geeta that Idol represents the Supreme Being and so its existence is never lost and deity cannot be divested from its property even by the Ruler or King.

In addition to this, it also states that the "Pilgrimage is a state subject [Entry-7, List-II, Schedule-7] hence Centre neither can restrain Hindus Jains Buddhists Sikhs to take over the complete possession of their places of worship and pilgrimage through judicial process nor can make law to abridge their rights and particularly with retrospective effect."

"Hindus are fighting for restoration of birthplace of Lord Krishna from hundreds of years and peaceful public agitation continues but while enacting the Act, Centre has excluded the birthplace of Lord Ram at Ayodhya but not the birthplace of Lord Krishna in Mathura, though both are the incarnations of Lord Vishnu, the creator," Thakur adds.

The plea alleges that Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs are continuously paying homage to the places of worship and pilgrimage through physical possession has been taken by members of other faiths. So, restriction to moving Court is arbitrary, irrational, and against the principle of rule of law, which is the core of Article 14.

Thakur submits that "only those Temples, Mosques, Churches, and Gurudwara can be protected under the Act, which were erected /constructed in accordance with the spirit of personal law applicable to person constructing them, but religious places, erected/ constructed in derogation of the personal law, cannot be termed as place of worship."

"Thus, S.2(c) is arbitrary, irrational and ultra-virus and unconstitutional to the extent it abridges the right to religion Hindus Jains Buddhists Sikhs protected under Articles 25, 26, 29," the plea added.

It may be noted that another plea had been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the provisions of the Places of Worship Act, 1991 stating that religious fundamentalists’ invasion on the land of India was always followed by the destruction of places of worship of eminence and a place of worship of different religious denomination was constructed or established over the ruins of the earlier structure and thus, each and every place of worship of eminence of Sanatan (Hindu) religion has one or more place of worship of a particular religious denomination in its vicinity.

In addition to this, another plea challenging the Places of Worship Act 1991 is pending before the Supreme Court filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay which states that "the Act has taken away the power of the Court and Religious Sects to restore their places of Worship". Notice was issued on the petition in March of 2021.

It may be noted that in the Gyanvapi disputed site matter, Mosque Committee has challenged the direction of the Varanasi Court directing to conduct videography and collect evidence regarding the alleged existence of Hindu deities inside the Gyanvapi Mosque complex. It has been alleged by the Committee that the direction of the Court in relation to the Survey of the site is in violation of the Places of Worship Act.

Cause Title: Devkinandan Thakur Ji Vs. Union of India & Ors.