Read Time: 09 minutes
It has been argued that the Places of Worship Act violates the principle of secularism, which is a part of the Constitution, and that it favours one particular community over others.
The Akhil Bhartiya Sant Samiti has approached the Supreme Court by way of an intervention application, challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, arguing that these provisions violate various fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India, particularly Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, and 29.
"The sections 3 and 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991, not only offends Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26 and 29 of the constitution of India but also violates the principles of natural justice and secularism, which is the integral part of the Preamble and basic structure of the Constitution of India," the application states.
Filed through Advocate-on-Record (AoR) Atulesh Kumar, the plea argues against the arbitrary cutoff date under the Act and states: "The arbitrary cutoff date, i.e., 15.08.1947, set by the Act to determine the status of religious places/places of worship, disregards historical facts and injustices, and therefore denies the right to redress for encroachments."
While noting that the Act not only curtails judicial review but also violates the right to freedom of religion, the plea highlights that the Act infringes upon the religious rights of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs. It further restricts the ability to reclaim and restore places of worship, thereby impeding the freedom of religion, it adds.
It has been argued that when the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991 came into force the Central Government created an arbitrary, irrational, retrospective cutoff date to declare that the character of places of worship/pilgrimage shall be maintained as it was on 15.8.1947. The plea further states that no suit or proceeding shall lie in the Court regarding disputes against encroachment done by fundamentalist barbaric invaders and lawbreakers and such proceeding shall stand abated.
"Thus, Centre has barred the remedies against illegal encroachment on the places of worship and pilgrimages and therefore now Hindu and other religious followers cannot file a suit or approach High Court under Article 226. Therefore, they won’t be able to restore their places of worship and pilgrimage including temples-endowments in spirit of Articles 25-26 and illegal act of invaders will continue in perpetuity," the application adds.
Recently, the Supreme Court of India also agreed to hear a petition filed by Asaduddin Owaisi, the President of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), seeking to enforce the provisions of Places of Worship Act.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna with Justice Sanjay Kumar tagged Owaisi's fresh plea with the pending cases on the issue which will be taken up on February 17.
In December 2024, in the batch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 (PoW Act) the Supreme Court had ordered that no trial court across India shall register any fresh suit filed by a community or its member claiming ownership of any existing religious place belonging to a different community.
Top Court has further ordered that no orders of survey or any effective orders shall be passed in the suits pertaining to religious places claims pending before the local courts of the high courts until it concludes the matter before it.
A special bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justices Sanjay Kumar, and KV Viswanathan could not hear the matter on the last date as no counter was on record on behalf of the Union government. Accordingly, court has allowed the Union 4 weeks' time to file the counter. It also ordered the respondents to file their replies by then as well.
The special bench is seized with the batch of petitions which include the pleas of Dr. Subramanian Swamy, Advocate J Sai Deepak, Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhayay and Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain challenging the legislation.
On the opposite side, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, led by President Maulana Arshad Madani has also filed a petition for 'effective and proper enforcement' of the provisions of the Act.
Moreover, the Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masjid, which oversees the Gyanvapi in Varanasi, has also approached the Supreme Court seeking to intervene in the batch of pleas. Its main contention is that the pleas against the PoW Act have been filed seeking to question its validity with rhetoric and they are rooted in communal claims. Therefore, it argues that such petitions cannot be entertained by the Supreme Court.
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board is also an opposing party in the batch of petitions.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India & Ors
Please Login or Register
