Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

Hindu Shree Foundation, an organization focused on restoration and preservation of temples, and holy pilgrimage sites, has sought intervention before the Supreme Court in the plea challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 (PoW Act). 

A batch of petitions which includes pleas filed by Dr. Subramanian Swamy and Advocate Ashwini Upadhayay challenge the legislation arguing that the law unfairly protects places of worship established through alleged acts of historical aggression.

The Foundation, through its Trustee Ravinder Singh Bisht, states that the issue raised in the batch of pleas is substantially and directly related to its objectives.

It asserts that since it represents the rights and interests of Hindus, therefore, it would be a necessary and relevant party for fair and representative adjudication of the writ petition filed by Advocate Upadhayay.

As per the intervention application, the Trust has been at the forefront legal challenges in the Madras High Court against the undue State interference of management of the Lord Nataraj Temple at Chidambaram, Madras. 

The Trust claims the PoW Act disproportionately impacts Hindus' religious and cultural rights, calling its cut-off date and court jurisdiction bar arbitrary and unconstitutional. It argues the Act enforces a perpetual status quo, even on Islamic structures built over sacred Hindu sites.

It is the case of the Trust that the operation of the impugned Act blocking any Party from approaching a Court to exercise its lawful rights over a religious site is contrary to the rights guaranteed under Article 14, 25, 26, 29(1) and 32 of the Constitution of India.

Moreover, the trust argues that Section 3 of the Act prohibits parties from executing good-faith settlements on religious site conversions, calling this restriction arbitrary and a violation of Article 14.

The Trust contends that barring religious site conversion through legal remedies or acquiescence violates Article 26(c), which grants denominations the right to own and acquire property. It argues that restrictions citing public order must be narrowly interpreted and cannot perpetually block fundamental rights. Allowing such a bar, the Trust warns, could enable communities to misuse the public order exception to suppress lawful claims.

"In the absence of such exception, the impugned Act is liable to be quashed for violation of Article 26(c) rights under the Constitution of India," the application states.

Furthermore, it claims that the bar on conversion of religious site provided under Section 3 of the impugned Act is violative of the Fundamental Rights under Article 29(1) of the Constitution of India.

"The right to conserve (one's culture) includes within its ambit not merely a negative right of preservation but a positive right to take such steps necessary for such conservation. Which shall include the right to take all lawful steps to convert a religious site by a decree of a competent court and/or by acquiescence in pursuance of its conservation rights under Article 29(1)," it submits.

The Trust further states that as a consequence of the extensive outreach, academic scholarship, and legal assistance in matters pertinent to devotees of the Sanatan Dharma, it has acquired the relevant expertise rendering it a necessary and relevant party in the pending proceedings before the court. 

Notably, the Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masjid, which oversees the Gyanvapi in Varanasi, has approached the Supreme Court seeking to intervene in this batch of pleas.

Case Title: Ashwini Upadhyay vs. Union of India