Breaking| No New Suits Be Filed, No Effective Interim Or Final Orders Be Passed In Pending Suits Relating To Places Of Worship Act: Apex Court

The Supreme Court today directed the Union of India to file its reply in a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.

The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 mandates that the nature of all places of worship, except the one in Ayodhya that was then under litigation, shall be maintained as it was on August 15, 1947.

The Bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice KV Viswanathan ordered, "Whatever is there, please file a reply. Give petitioners a copy. You can't make available an e-copy of your reply on the internet. Till reply comes, we can't hear. Anybody who has an issue, we will take it up. Till the next date of hearing, no further suits can be filed or registered."

"Copies are to be served to petitioners who may file rejoinder after 4 weeks. A copy of the counter will be uploaded on Google Drive," the Court ordered.

At the outset, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union, contended, "We will file."

It is to be noted that political parties CPI (M), Indian Union Muslim League, NCP (Sharad Pawar) MLA Jitendra Awhad, RJD MP Manoj Kumar Jha, and MP Thol Thirumavalan have sought to intervene in the matter.

The Court allowed all the intervention applications. "Application for impleadment stands allowed. Union has not filed a counter, let the counter be filed within four weeks. Respondents to do the same. Copy of counter to be served on petitioners. Petitioner shall file rejoinder within 4 weeks after counter," the Bench said.

During the hearing, the Court appointed Advocate Kanu Agarwal as the nodal officer for the Union of India, Advocate Ejaz Maqbool as the nodal officer for the intervenors, and Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain as the nodal officer for the petitioners who are challenging the Act.

Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak contended that the survey need not be stayed during the pendency of the matter.

The Bench ordered, "We deem it appropriate that fresh suits may be filed, but no suits would be registered and proceedings undertaken till further orders. In pending suits, courts would not pass effective/final orders."

Furthermore, the Court said, "We are examining the vires of the Act, and so it will not be proper for other courts to examine it." The Court directed that no effective interim or final orders, including surveys, shall be passed till the next date.

Recently, Manoj Kumar Jha, Rajya Sabha MP from the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), has filed an intervention application in the Supreme Court supporting the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The intervention, filed through Advocate-on-Record Fauzia Shakil, argues that the 1991 Act aligns with the constitutional principles enshrined in the Preamble and Articles 14, 15, 25, 26, and 51A. It asserts that the Act promotes secular values and is essential for preserving communal harmony by maintaining the status quo of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947.

"The Act serves as a legislative guarantee to protect religious structures and reinforces the obligations of a secular State, ensuring equality among religions," the application states. It adds that the Act does not violate any fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution and instead upholds the spirit of secularism.

Jha's plea raises concerns about the growing use of religion for political purposes and the potential threat to constitutional values posed by such practices. "Recent incidents of weaponizing religion, polarizing communities, and fostering a divisive agenda have led to a situation where dissent and diversity are increasingly under threat," it notes.

Pertinently, in July 2023, the Court had granted time till October 31 to the Centre to file its response to a batch of pleas challenging certain provisions of a 1991 law that prohibits filing a lawsuit to reclaim a place of worship or seek a change in its character from what prevailed on August 15, 1947.

On January 9, 2023, the Apex Court had asked the central government to file its reply to the PILs against some provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, and had granted it time till the end of February to submit its response. The Court is seized of six petitions, including the PILs filed by lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay and former Rajya Sabha MP Swamy, against the provisions of the law.

Upadhyay has prayed that Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, be set aside on grounds, including that these provisions take away the right of judicial remedy to reclaim a place of worship of any person or a religious group. Earlier, the apex court had observed that the pleas challenging the validity of certain provisions of the law can be referred to a five-judge Constitution bench for adjudication. While Swamy wanted the Apex court to "read down" certain provisions to enable Hindus to stake claim over the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah Mosque in Mathura, Upadhyay claimed the entire statute was unconstitutional and no question of reading down arises.

The doctrine of reading down a law is generally used to save a statute from being struck down on account of its unconstitutionality. The Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, represented by Advocate Ejaz Maqbool, had referred to the five-judge Constitution bench judgment in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title case and said the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, has been referred to there and it cannot be set aside now.

The petition alleged that the 1991 law creates an "arbitrary and irrational retrospective cut-off date" of August 15, 1947, for maintaining the character of the places of worship or pilgrimage against encroachment done by "fundamentalist-barbaric invaders and law-breakers."

The 1991 law prohibits conversion of any place of worship and provides for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The law had made only one exception on the dispute pertaining to the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid in Ayodhya.

Cause Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 1246/2020; Diary No. 23509/2020]