Read Time: 09 minutes
INC apprehends that any alterations to it could jeopardize India's communal harmony and secular fabric thereby threatening the sovereignty and integrity of the nation
Indian National Congress has moved Supreme Court of India to intervene in the petition challenging the validity of Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 (“POWA”).
"The POWA is essential to safeguard secularism in India and the present challenge appears to be a motivated and malicious attempt to undermine established principles of secularism...", the IA before top court submits.
As at the time of the passing of the POWA, it was the Applicant Party along with the Janata Dal party that were in the majority in the legislature for the 10th Lok Sabha, the INC has submitted, "the POWA was enacted by the Parliament, as it reflected the mandate of the Indian populace. In fact, the POWA had been envisaged prior to the year 1991 and the same was made a part of the Applicant’s then Election Manifesto for the Parliamentary elections".
As per the applicant party, POWA plays a pivotal role in furthering the right to freedom of religion and protects secularism, which is an established basic feature of the constitution. POWA actualizes the right to freedom of religion and principles of secularism enshrined in Articles 25, 26, 27 and 28 of the Constitution, the application adds.
On the erroneous submission that POWA is discriminatory as it is applicable only towards members of the Hindu, Sikh, Jain and Buddhist communities, the applicant clarifies, "A bare perusal of the POWA shows that it promotes equality amongst all religious groups and does not accord special treatment towards specific communities as alleged by the Petitioner. It is equally applicable towards places of worship of all religious groups and ascertains and affixes their nature as on 15.08.1947."
Recently, Akhil Bhartiya Sant Samiti has also approached the Supreme Court by way of an intervention application, challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, arguing that these provisions violate various fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India, particularly Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, and 29.
Supreme Court of India also agreed to hear a petition filed by Asaduddin Owaisi, the President of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), seeking to enforce the provisions of Places of Worship Act.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna with Justice Sanjay Kumar tagged Owaisi's fresh plea with the pending cases on the issue which will be taken up on February 17.
In December 2024, in the batch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 (PoW Act) the Supreme Court had 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.
Top Court has further 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 could not hear the matter on the last date as no counter was on record on behalf of the Union government. Accordingly, court has allowed the Union 4 weeks' time to file the counter. It also ordered the respondents to file their replies by then as well.
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.
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.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India & Ors
Please Login or Register
