Read Time: 13 minutes

Synopsis

In a significant development, the Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masjid, which oversees the Gyanvapi in Varanasi, has approached the Supreme Court seeking to intervene in pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 (PoW Act). The committee's intervention application underscores its position as a critical stakeholder in the ongoing legal battle surrounding the Act.

It contended that almost three decades from the enactment of the 1991 Act, the plea against the PoW Act, was filed seeking to question its validity with rhetoric and rooted in communal claims. Therefore, it argued, such a petition cannot be entertained by the Supreme Court.

The Places of Worship Act, 1991, prohibits the conversion of any religious place as it existed on August 15, 1947, and aims to preserve the religious character of such sites. However, the law has faced a slew of legal challenges, particularly from Hindu petitioners, who claim that several mosques, including the Gyanvapi Mosque, were built on demolished temples.

Grounds for Intervention

In its application, the mosque management committee argued that it was compelled to seek intervention as the Act was being "misinterpreted and undermined" through the filing of multiple suits against Gyanvapi. It emphasized that interim relief, such as surveys of disputed mosque premises, was being sought even before the core issues in these cases were identified.

The committee stated that it relies on the Supreme Court’s landmark verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case to defend the Act's validity. According to the committee, the judgment recognized the principle of "non-retrogression"—a core tenet of secularism under the Indian Constitution. Non-retrogression refers to the idea that once protection is extended to a right or principle, it cannot be rolled back.

The intervention application argued that the Places of Worship Act reflects this principle of non-retrogression, ensuring communal harmony by preventing disputes based on historical events. It noted that the court in the Ram Janmabhoomi case had upheld the Act as integral to secular values, leaving no room for doubt about its constitutional validity.

It stated that the Supreme Court's Constitution bench went on to note that our history is replete with actions judged to be morally incorrect and even today are liable to trigger vociferous ideological debate. "However, it held, that the adoption of the Constitution marks a watershed moment where We, the People of India, departed from the determination of rights and liabilities on the basis of our ideology, our religion, the colour of our skin, or the century when our ancestors arrived at these lands, and submitted to the rule of law", it pointed out.

The interpretation of the 1991 Act by the five judge bench in M Siddiq (Ram temple case) has left no manner of doubt as to the reasons for the enactment and the provisions being a core component of the principle of non-retrogression and secular values, the plea further stated.

Concerns Over National Impact

The committee also expressed concerns about the broader implications of the pleas challenging the Act. Referring to recent communal violence in Uttar Pradesh's Sambhal district, it warned that invalidating the Act could lead to widespread unrest. "The consequences of the declarations sought in these pleas are bound to be drastic," the application stated, highlighting the potential for disputes to emerge in every part of the country.

It stated, "as seen recently in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh where a court permitted survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid by allowing an application for appointment of Survey Commissioner the very day when the suit was presented, in ex parte proceedings (though ASI was a party), the incident led to widespread violence and has claimed, as per reports, at least six citizens' lives".

The plea apprehended that the declaration sought would mean such disputes raising their head in every nook and corner of the country and ultimately obliterate the rule of law and communal harmony.

The committee criticized the petitioners' claims as "rhetorical," asserting that historical actions by ancient rulers cannot form a valid basis for challenging the constitutional validity of the Act. 

It further urged the Supreme Court to respect the intent of Parliament in enacting the 1991 legislation, which was introduced after thorough deliberation to ensure that historical disputes do not hinder the nation's future.

Historical Context and Ongoing Disputes

The Gyanvapi has been at the center of a contentious legal battle. In 2021, Hindu parties claimed that a temple previously existed at the site, alleging it was demolished in the 17th century by Mughal emperor Aurangzeb. The Muslim side has consistently rejected these claims.

Earlier this year, a Varanasi court allowed Hindu devotees to worship inside the sealed basement of the Gyanvapi premises, granting them access to 'Vyas Ka Tekhana,' a restricted area within the complex. However, in October, the same court rejected a plea by Hindu petitioners seeking an additional survey of the entire premises by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).

It further stated in the past few years, several claims have already been made concerning various Mosques/Dargahs claiming them to be ancient temples. In this regard, the committee cited cases of:

• The Shahi Idgah Masjid at Mathura.

• The Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque, Qutub Minar, Delhi.

• Kamal Maula Mosque, Bhojshala Complex, Madhya Pradesh.

• Bija Mandal Mosque, Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh.

• Teeley Wali Masjid, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

• Ajmer Sharif Dargah, Rajasthan.

• The Jama Masjid and dargah (mausoleum) of Sufi saint Shaikh Salim Chishti at Fatehpur Sikri, Uttar Pradesh.

• Baba Budangiri Dargah, Hosakaoti, Karnataka.

• Badruddin Shah Dargah, Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh.

• Atala Masjid, Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh.

• Pirana Dargah, Gujarat.

• Jama Masjid, Bhopal.

• Hazrat Shah Ali Dargah, Telangana.

• Ladle Mashak Dargah, Karnataka.

Defending Legislative Intent

The Anjuman Intezamia Masjid committee underscored in its plea the legislative intent behind the 1991 Act, which sought to preserve India's secular fabric. The Parliament, in its wisdom and legislative competence, enacted the 1991 Act as a conscious decision to let the past not haunt the future of the country, the application stated.

The Supreme Court is currently examining multiple petitions challenging the Act, filed by various Hindu groups. These petitions argue that the law unfairly protects places of worship established through alleged acts of historical aggression.

As the apex court deliberates on this politically and communally sensitive issue, the Gyanvapi management committee's intervention highlights the high stakes involved.

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs Union of India & Ors