Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court will hear a petition filed by Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, led by President Maulana Arshad Madani, regarding the 'effective and proper enforcement' of the provisions of the Protection of Places of Worship Act, 1991, on December 12, 2024.

The petition, in the wake of the Sambhal tragedy and claims by Hindutva groups over the Ajmer Dargah, will be heard by a three-judge bench, headed by the Chief Justice of India, along with Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan.

The petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution categorizing as a Public Interest Litigation. It addresses a growing wave of controversies and legal suits aimed at altering the religious character of various places of worship.

The Act, enacted by Parliament in 1991, aims to preserve the religious character of all places of worship as they stood on August 15, 1947. It prohibits conversion of any such sites and enforces penalties for violations.

The petition argues that several ongoing cases blatantly disregard this statute, undermining communal harmony and the constitutional principles of secularism and fraternity.

The petition highlights a surge in legal disputes challenging the historical integrity of Muslim places of worship. It cites claims that mosques and mausoleums were erected on the ruins of Hindu temples by Muslim rulers. These allegations, according to the petition, fuel communal discord and contravene the Supreme Court’s 2020 judgment in the Ayodhya case. The judgment emphasized that historical wrongs cannot form the basis for legal claims in contemporary courts.

The Jamiat’s petition accuses vested interests of using such disputes to polarize communities, fostering an atmosphere of hatred. Interim court orders in some cases have allegedly disrupted the status quo, further exacerbating tensions, it claims. The petition calls for robust judicial mechanisms to curb these tendencies and uphold the constitutional mandate of religious equality.

Citing the Ayodhya judgment, the petition underscores the Supreme Court’s observations that the Places of Worship Act embodies India’s secular commitments. The Act’s provisions ensure that historical grievances are not exploited for contemporary disputes. Section 4 of the Act explicitly bars any legal challenges to the status of places of worship as they existed in 1947, except for the Ayodhya site, which was specifically exempted, it states.

"These suits which rest on the basis that Muslim Invaders allegedly converted the Hindu Places of Worship, cannot be entertained in view of the law laid down by the 5 Judges Constitution Bench of this Hon’ble Court in M. Siddiq’s judgment," the plea reads.

The petition further argues that the Act operationalizes fundamental duties under Article 51A of the Constitution, urging citizens to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood.

The petition catalogues numerous cases where the Act's provisions were allegedly ignored. These include disputes involving the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, the Quwwat-ul-Islam mosque in Delhi, and the Shahi Idgah mosque in Mathura. The petition criticizes frivolous litigation seeking to excavate or alter these sites, often based on unsubstantiated claims of their historical origins.

The Jamiat asserts that the judiciary has a pivotal role in upholding the Act and preventing its misuse. It seeks directions from the Supreme Court for a clear framework to address such disputes and ensure the effective implementation of the law. The petition also emphasizes the need for strict measures against those fostering communal polarization under the guise of legal claims.

"The frivolous allegations made in the suits seeking to convert Muslim places of worship are many times casted in a way which demonises the entire Muslim community. Such allegations are likely to trigger communal antagonism and hatred resulting in fissiparous tendencies gaining foothold, undermining and affecting communal harmony," it states.

The plea is connected with the batch of petitions including the pleas by Dr. Subramanian Swamy, Advocate J Sai Deepak, Ashwini Upadhayay and Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain challenging the legislation.

Case Title: Jamiat ulama-i-hind & anr versus Union of india & anr.