Read Time: 05 minutes
Court also appointed nodal counsel for all sides in the matter–Adv Kanu Agarwal for Union, Adv Ejez Makbool for the parties seeking effective implementation of the PoW Act and Adv Vishnu Shankar Jain will be the nodal counsel for petitioners challenging the Act
In the batch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 (PoW Act) today, the Supreme Court 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 pointed out that no counter was on record on behalf of the Union government and therefore, it could not hear the matter today.
To this, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that the counter will be filed.
Accordingly, court allowed the Union 4 weeks' time to file the counter. It also ordered the respondents to file their replies by then as well.
Court further directed that a copy of the Union's reply to be served upon the petitioners in the batch of pleas and asked the latter to file their rejoinder thereafter.
A special bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justices Sanjay Kumar, and KV Viswanathan 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.
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
