Read Time: 07 minutes

Another Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court has challenged the provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The plea states that a mosque constructed on a temple land cannot be a mosque.

The PIL filed by one Anil Kabotra through Advocate Ashwani Kumar Dubey states, "Retrospective cutoff-date was fixed 15th August 1947 (of the Act) to legalize the illegal acts of barbaric invaders. Though, Hindu Law was 'Law in force' at the commencement of the Constitution."

The plea argues that "the status of mosque can be given only to such structures which have been constructed according to tenets of Islam and mosques constructed against the provisions contained in Islamic law cannot be termed as Mosque".

Whereas Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs have the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion as provided in their religious scriptures and Article 13 prohibits making a law that takes away their rights, the plea adds.

"Muslims cannot assert any right in respect of any piece of land claiming to be a mosque unless it has been constructed on legally owned and occupied virgin land," Kabotra argues through his petition.

The plea further submits that a "temple’s religious character does not change after demolition of roof, walls, pillars, foundation and even by offering Namaz. After the Pran Pratishtha of the idol, a temple is always a temple until the Idol is shifted to another temple with rituals of Visarjan."

The plea reads that a mosque constructed on temple land cannot be a mosque, not only for the reason that such construction is against Islamic law but also on grounds that the property once vested in the deity continues to be the deity’s property and right of deity and devotees are never lost, howsoever long illegal encroachment continues on such property.

It contends that the right to justice, right to judicial remedy, and right to dignity are integral parts of Article 21 but the 1991 Act violates them. Likewise, the right to pray and practice propagate Hinduism Jainism Buddhism Sikhism, guaranteed under Article 25, is being blatantly offended by the 1991 Act, the plea adds.

The plea has sought directions to declare Section 2, 3, and 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provision) Act, 1991 as void and unconstitutional as it "legalizes ‘the ancient historical and puranic places of worship and pilgrimage’, illegally occupied by barbaric foreign invaders."

Another plea challenging the Places of Worship Act 1991 is pending before the Supreme Court filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay which states that "the Act has taken away the power of the Court and Religious Sects to restore their places of Worship". Notice was issued on the petition in March of 2021.

In this plea, recently, Jamait Ulama-I-Hind filed an impleadment application before the Top Court.

In addition to this, one more plea has challenged the 1991 Act stating that religious fundamentalists’ invasion on the land of India was always followed by the destruction of places of worship of eminence and a place of worship of different religious denomination was constructed or established over the ruins of the earlier structure and thus, each and every place of worship of eminence of Sanatan (Hindu) religion has one or more place of worship of a particular religious denomination in its vicinity.

Case Title: Anil Kabotra Vs. Union of India & Ors.

ALSO READ: Cut-off date of 15 August 1947 is reflection of colonial continuity- an antithesis to constitutional norms of equality & fairness| Subramanian Swamy's take on Places of Worship Act, 1991