The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear several Public Interest Litigations (PILs) today, challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. This law prevents lawsuits aimed at reclaiming or altering the nature of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947. The case will be heard by a three-judge bench, including Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan.
The Pleas’ Arguments
One significant petition, filed by Ashwini Upadhyay, seeks to invalidate Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Act, arguing that they deny individuals and religious groups the right to judicial remedy in reclaiming worship sites. Former Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy has also approached the court, asking it to “read down” certain provisions, allowing Hindus to lay claims to disputed sites like the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah Mosque in Mathura. Upadhyay opposes this approach, maintaining that the entire statute is unconstitutional and no adjustments should be made.
Defense of the Act
The Communist Party of India (Marxist) and Maharashtra MLA Jitendra Satish Awhad have defended the Act, arguing that it is crucial for preserving public order, unity, fraternity, and secularism in India. Meanwhile, the Muslim side involved in ongoing disputes, including the Gyanvapi and Shahi Idgah cases, has used the 1991 law to dismiss such lawsuits, calling them inadmissible. The Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind has also cited the five-judge Constitution Bench’s ruling in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case to support the Act, emphasizing its role in upholding constitutional values.
Historical Context and Legal Provisions
The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, prohibits the conversion of any place of worship and mandates that their religious character be preserved as it was on August 15, 1947. However, the Act excludes the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute in Ayodhya. Critics of the Act argue that the retroactive cut-off date of August 15, 1947, is arbitrary and irrational, protecting encroachments by “fundamentalist invaders and lawbreakers.”
Centre’s Response and Future Impact
On March 12, 2022, the Supreme Court asked the central government to respond to Upadhyay’s plea. Today’s hearings occur amidst several ongoing legal battles over disputed religious sites, with the court set to examine the constitutionality of a law with significant implications for communal harmony and India’s secular fabric.