Read Time: 09 minutes

An Application for intervention has been moved by Co-Mutawalli of Teeley Wali Masjid, a 350 year old mosque in Lucknow in the matter of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, challenging sections 2,3,4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.

“Petitioner has sought to set up an allegedly factual case of fundamentalist barbarians coming to India and destroying places of worship without providing any facts, sources or setting up a case that any such places of worship have indeed been destroyed”, the application enumerates.

Broadly, the applicant submits that:

1. Petition challenging Places of worship Act, 1991 is a ‘mischievous’ attempt at isolating the Muslim community from other major religious communities in India.
2. Petitioner has sought to set up an allegedly factual case of fundamentalist barbarians coming to India and destroying places of worship without providing any facts, sources or setting up a case that any such places of worship have indeed been destroyed.
3. Petitioner has bizarrely claimed that 15 August, 1947 is an arbitrary cut-off date, as it happens to be the date of independence when the Nation decided to carve out a new path for itself and all its citizens. “This is not an arbitrary cut-off date, unless the Petitioner wishes to negate the importance of Indian independence and the foundation of the modern secular state of India”.
4.  Equating ‘pilgrimages’ with ‘places of worship’ is a misconceived notion.
5. Petition seems to be a mischievous attempt to reopen the Ramjanmbhoomi Babri Masjid dispute.
6. Petitioner has suppressed the judgment in M.Siddiq (D) through L.Rs v. Mahant Suresh Das and Ors. (2020) 1 SCC 1, where the purpose of the 1991 Act was noted by a Constitution Bench as, “a legislative instrument designed to protect the secular features of the Indian polity, which is one of the basic features of the Constitution. Non-retrogression is a foundational feature of the fundamental constitutional principles of which secularism is a core component. The Places of Worship Act is thus a legislative intervention which preserves non – retrogression as an essential feature of our secular values.”
7. Instant petition is an attempt to strike at the very root of the sovereign, socialist, secular and democratic republic of India where religious grievance concocted towards petty political ends would have primacy over the national goal of development.

On March 12, 2021, The Supreme Court issued Notice on the PIL which has averred that the Act takes away the power of Court and Religious Sects to restore their places of Worship. Challenge has been sought against Sections 2,3,4 Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 on the grounds of Article 14,15,21,25,26 and 29 of the Constitution.

Cause of Action, as mentioned, arose when the impugned Act came into force on 11.07.1991.

“Centre by making the impugned Act has created arbitrary irrational retrospective cutoff date, declared that character of places of worship-pilgrimage shall be maintained as it was on 15.8.1947 and no suit or proceeding shall lie in Court in respect of disputes against encroachment done by fundamentalist barbaric invaders and law breakers and such proceeding shall stand abated. If suit/appeal/proceeding filed on ground that conversion of place of worship and pilgrimage has taken place after 15.8.1947 and before 18.9.1991, that shall be disposed off in terms of S.4(1)”, the plea states.

It is the contention of the petitioner that by aforementioned provisions, the Centre has barred the remedies against illegal encroachment on places of worship and pilgrimages as no Hindu, Buddhist or Sikh can file any suit or approach High Court under Article 226 for restoration of his place of worship.

It is further submitted that by enacting such law, the legislature has taken away the power of Judicial Review from the Courts, which is the Basic Structure of the Constitution.

The Petitioner inter alia states that the Act Offends right of Hindus Jains Buddhists Sikhs to pray profess practice and propagate religion (Article 25) and Legalizes barbarian acts of invaders

Further, it contends that the Act violates the doctrine of Hindu law; ‘Temple property is never lost even if enjoyed by strangers for years and even the king cannot take away property as deity is embodiment of God and is juristic person, represents ‘Infinite the timeless’ and cannot be confined by the shackles of time.’