Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

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 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 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.

On court's order of no fresh suits, Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain sought clarification. The CJI replied that though fresh suits can be filed, it will not be registered. 

Also, Adv. Vikas Singh raised the question as why a stay was being put on the pending suits as the present batch of petitions concerns the vires of the PoW Act. To this, court said that it will hear his argument on a later date but at the current stage, it could not entertain his arguments. 

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.

On the order of stay on further suits, Justice Viswanathan said that about Section 3 of the Act, one view is that it is an effective manifestation or a reiteration of already embedded constitutional principles so much so that even without the Act, if a suit is objected on the ground of plain constitutional principles, the civil court cannot run a race with the Supreme Court. 

Moreover, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that an Email ID has been created where every relevant documents from all parties to the batch of petitions can be uploaded. 

Court also allowed all the intervention applications that have been filed in the batch of pleas. 

Notably, the CJI observed during the proceedings today that factually there is not much in the petitions filed before it in the present bunch of pleas, mostly, there are legal issues on which Union's response is awaited. 

Court directed the UOI to create a webspace which would be accessible to all parties involved in the present matter and the UOI will upload its counter there. 

Also, court appointed Advocate Kanu Agarwal as the nodal counsel on behalf of UOI, Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain as nodal counsel for the petitioners challenging the validity of PoW Act and Advocate Ezaz Maqbool as nodal counsel on behalf of the petitioners seeking effective enforcement of the Act or opposing the petitions against the Act. 

On 12 October 2022, the top court had formulated several questions of law that arise in the present batch of consideration.

However, on Senior Counsel Sai J Deepak's mentioning that there are several other aspects to the matter, the bench said it will incorporate those as well.

On the petition filed by  Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, led by President Maulana Arshad Madani, for 'effective and proper enforcement' of the provisions of the Act, court noted that no counter has been filed yet. 

Court highlighted that Sections 3 & 4 of the Act are the primary issues before the court for consideration. 

The matter will be next heard on February 17, 2025.

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