Supreme Court stays proceedings in all petitions challenging Places of Worship Act
The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed proceedings in all petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justice PV Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Viswanathan further directed the trial courts not to pass any verdict or order any survey on suits challenging the Act.
Noting that the Act expressly prohibited the institution of any suit that disputed the religious character of an existing religious structure, as it stood on August 15, 1947, the Apex Court observed that this was affirmed by a Constitution Bench in the Ayodhya verdict also.
The top court of the country further directed that no new suits could be registered till this Court disposed of the petitions challenging the provisions of the Act.
Stating that it was on vires as well as on the ambit of the Act, the Bench directed the Union of India to file a counter-affidavit on the petitions within four weeks.
It further granted four weeks to the petitioners to submit a rejoinder after filing of the counter-affidavit.
The Bench also appointed nodal counsels on behalf of various parties. It appointed Advocate Ejaz Maqbool as nodal counsel for parties seeking enforcement of the Place of Worship Act and Advocate Kanu Agrawal for the Central government. Advocate Vishnu Jain was appointed as nodal counsel on behalf of parties challenging the validity of the Act.
Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran apprised the Bench that at least 18 suits were pending before various courts over four religious structures, including the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal, the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi, the Shahi Eidgah Masjid in Mathura and the Ajmer Dargah in Rajasthan.
The Senior Advocate sought stay on proceedings in all courts.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that a stranger, who was not a party to the case, could not come and seek stay on all proceedings.
In 2020, Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay filed the lead petition in the case. In March 2021, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government on his plea.
Similar petitions were later filed in the case, including Vishwa Bhadra Pujari Purohit Mahasangh vs UOI and Dr. Subhramanian Swamy And Ors vs UOI.
Till date, more than 18 suits have been filed by various Hindu organisations and individuals, seeking rights over Muslim mosques on claims that these mosques were built over ancient temples. The Muslim parties have opposed the maintainability of such suits on the grounds of the Places of Worship Act.
Section 3 of the 1991 Act expressly barred the conversion of any place of worship of any religious denomination into another place of worship of a different section of the same religious denomination or a different religious denomination all together.
Section 4 declared that the religious character of a place of worship existing on August 15, 1947 shall continue to be the same as it existed on that day. The Act further prohibited legal proceedings seeking conversion of these places.
Terming the law as arbitrary and unreasonable, the petitioners contended that the 1991 Act infringed the fundamental right to practice religion, leading to violation of the fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 25 of the Indian Constitution.
Recently, the Managing Committee of the Anjuman Intezemia Masjid in Varanasi filed an intervention petition in the Supreme Court in the pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship Act, 1991.
Filed by AoR Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, the petition claimed that the Managing Committee of the Anjuman Intezemia Masjid was a key stakeholder in the legal deliberation since several suits have been filed claiming the removal of the Gyanvapi Mosque despite the bar under Sections 3 and 4 of the 1991 Act.
The committee said the applicant was constrained to intervene in the present proceedings as due to misreading/misinterpretation of the 1991 Act, the salutary reasons for which it had been enacted, were being sought to be diluted.
It contended that the consequences of the declaration sought by the petitioner that the Act was unconstitutional were bound to be ‘drastic’. It also raised concern over the filing of suits against Mosques and Dargahs, even before the issues were struck, seeking interim directions for the survey of the Mosques or an ASI inspection.
The petition further mentioned the ex-parte interim orders granted by the district courts, allowing the survey of the Gyanvapi Mosque and the recent survey at the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal.
The declaration sought by the petitioner would mean such disputes may rise their head in every nook and corner of the country and ultimately obliterate the rule of law and communal harmony, it added.
The post appeared first on .
The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed proceedings in all petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justice PV Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Viswanathan further directed the trial courts not to pass any verdict or order any survey on suits challenging the Act.
Noting that the Act expressly prohibited the institution of any suit that disputed the religious character of an existing religious structure, as it stood on August 15, 1947, the Apex Court observed that this was affirmed by a Constitution Bench in the Ayodhya verdict also.
The top court of the country further directed that no new suits could be registered till this Court disposed of the petitions challenging the provisions of the Act.
Stating that it was on vires as well as on the ambit of the Act, the Bench directed the Union of India to file a counter-affidavit on the petitions within four weeks.
It further granted four weeks to the petitioners to submit a rejoinder after filing of the counter-affidavit.
The Bench also appointed nodal counsels on behalf of various parties. It appointed Advocate Ejaz Maqbool as nodal counsel for parties seeking enforcement of the Place of Worship Act and Advocate Kanu Agrawal for the Central government. Advocate Vishnu Jain was appointed as nodal counsel on behalf of parties challenging the validity of the Act.
Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran apprised the Bench that at least 18 suits were pending before various courts over four religious structures, including the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal, the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi, the Shahi Eidgah Masjid in Mathura and the Ajmer Dargah in Rajasthan.
The Senior Advocate sought stay on proceedings in all courts.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that a stranger, who was not a party to the case, could not come and seek stay on all proceedings.
In 2020, Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay filed the lead petition in the case. In March 2021, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government on his plea.
Similar petitions were later filed in the case, including Vishwa Bhadra Pujari Purohit Mahasangh vs UOI and Dr. Subhramanian Swamy And Ors vs UOI.
Till date, more than 18 suits have been filed by various Hindu organisations and individuals, seeking rights over Muslim mosques on claims that these mosques were built over ancient temples. The Muslim parties have opposed the maintainability of such suits on the grounds of the Places of Worship Act.
Section 3 of the 1991 Act expressly barred the conversion of any place of worship of any religious denomination into another place of worship of a different section of the same religious denomination or a different religious denomination all together.
Section 4 declared that the religious character of a place of worship existing on August 15, 1947 shall continue to be the same as it existed on that day. The Act further prohibited legal proceedings seeking conversion of these places.
Terming the law as arbitrary and unreasonable, the petitioners contended that the 1991 Act infringed the fundamental right to practice religion, leading to violation of the fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 25 of the Indian Constitution.
Recently, the Managing Committee of the Anjuman Intezemia Masjid in Varanasi filed an intervention petition in the Supreme Court in the pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship Act, 1991.
Filed by AoR Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, the petition claimed that the Managing Committee of the Anjuman Intezemia Masjid was a key stakeholder in the legal deliberation since several suits have been filed claiming the removal of the Gyanvapi Mosque despite the bar under Sections 3 and 4 of the 1991 Act.
The committee said the applicant was constrained to intervene in the present proceedings as due to misreading/misinterpretation of the 1991 Act, the salutary reasons for which it had been enacted, were being sought to be diluted.
It contended that the consequences of the declaration sought by the petitioner that the Act was unconstitutional were bound to be ‘drastic’. It also raised concern over the filing of suits against Mosques and Dargahs, even before the issues were struck, seeking interim directions for the survey of the Mosques or an ASI inspection.
The petition further mentioned the ex-parte interim orders granted by the district courts, allowing the survey of the Gyanvapi Mosque and the recent survey at the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal.
The declaration sought by the petitioner would mean such disputes may rise their head in every nook and corner of the country and ultimately obliterate the rule of law and communal harmony, it added.
The post appeared first on .