Read Time: 09 minutes
"We're constrained to pass this order as there are a large number of writ petitions being filed...There has to be some deadline for filing of new petitions", said the CJI
The Supreme Court on Monday, February 17, 2025, adjourned the hearing in the batch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 (PoW Act). The bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar directed the matter to be re-listed on the week commencing April 1, 2025, before the three-judge bench.
When the matter was taken up, the CJI noted that the continuous filing of new petitions has become unmanageable. In response to the petitioners' argument that the Union has not yet filed its counter, the CJI stated that this was due to the regular filing of new pleas.
Court therefore suggested that if anybody wants to file a writ petition in the matter, instead they file intervention applications raising additional grounds, otherwise it would become impossible for the court to hear and conclude the matter.
Regarding the new writ petitions, court said that it is not inclined to issue notice in those leaving it open to the said writ petitioners to file intervention applications raising additional grounds in the pending writ petitions. "We're constrained to pass this order as there are a large number of writ petitions being filed...There has to be some deadline for filing of new petitions", said the CJI.
Court also ordered that in writ petitions in which notice has not been issued will be considered disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file intervention applications.
Moreover, court ordered that any new intervention application will only be entertained if it raises a new legal point or issue concerning the matter.
Recently, a petition was 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. Also, the Akhil Bhartiya Sant Samiti approached the court to intervene in the pending pleas on the issue.
The Indian National Congress also moved the court to intervene in the petitions challenging the validity of Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the PoW Act.
On the previous date, the 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 till the next date of hearing in the matter before it.
A special bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justices Sanjay Kumar, and KV Viswanathan had then pointed out that no counter was on record on behalf of the Union government and therefore, it could not hear the matter.
To this, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had informed the court that the counter will be filed.
Accordingly, court had allowed the Union 4 weeks' time to file the counter. It had also ordered the respondents to file their replies by then as well.
Furthermore, during the hearing, court was informed that there are 10 places of worship on which suits claiming ownership are pending from other communities. Supreme Court is already seized of suits pertaining to Shahi Idgah of Mathura and Gyanvapi of Varanasi as well.
Notably, the CJI had then observed that factually there was not much in the petitions filed before it in the bunch of pleas, mostly, there were legal issues on which Union's response was awaited.
On 12 October 2022, the top court had formulated several questions of law that arise in the present batch of consideration.
Court had highlighted that Sections 3 & 4 of the Act were the primary issues before it for consideration.
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.
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.
In September, 2022, a bench of then CJI U.U. Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice PS Narasimha, had sought Centre’s response in the pleas.
Case Title: Ashwini Upadhyay vs. Union of India and connected matters
Please Login or Register
