Skip to main content

Supreme Court Directs Union Government To File Response In Plea Challenging Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991

Supreme Court Directs Union Government To File Response In Plea Challenging Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991


The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Union government to file its reply to a batch of PILs challenging the validity of certain provisions of a 1991 law which prohibits the filing of a lawsuit to reclaim a place of worship or seek a change in its character from what prevailed on August 15, 1947.

A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha gave the Centre time till the end of February to submit its response to the petitions against some provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.


Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for some of the intervenors, raised the preliminary objection to the challenge of a statute through PILs, calling it a serious issue.

"I have certain points to make. First, this challenge has been made through PILs...I can understand if there is a dispute concerning a structure. This is an Act in regard to which certain observations have been made in Ram Janmabhoomi case (Ayodhya verdict)," Mr Sibal said.

"My preliminary objection is that these PILs cannot be entertained unless they relate to a particular structure. There cannot be a public interest qua judgement of a court taking a certain view," Mr Sibal said.


He added that before the court goes into the final hearing of the matter, these preliminary issues needed to be dealt with.

The bench noted the objection raised by Mr Sibal and said it will take that into account during the final hearing by the end of February.

Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay, said the challenge has been made to the legislation and not against any observations made by the court in the judgement.


Advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for one of the parties, said it is not clear what the Union government has to say on the issue as it has not submitted its stand in an affidavit.

"While these petitions are pending, there are disputes such as the Gyanvapi mosque (dispute in Varanasi), Idgah mosque (Mathura) which are in direct breach of the statute. Litigations of all manner have been taking place, while the Centre is yet to place on record its stand on the statute," she said.


The top court was hearing the pleas, including the one filed by Mr Upadhyay, who has prayed that sections 2, 3, 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.

As many as six petitions, including those filed by former Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy, have been filed against the provisions of the law.

On November 14 last year, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, had said a comprehensive affidavit will be filed by the Union government dealing with various facets of the case and sought some more time to ensure that the document is filed after due deliberation at various levels of the government.


While hearing the matter on September 9 last year, the Supreme Court had said the pleas challenging the validity of certain provisions of the 1991 law can be referred to a five-judge Constitution bench for adjudication and asked the Centre to file a reply.

While BJP leader and former Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy wanted the Supreme Court to "read down" certain provisions to enable Hindus to stake claim over the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi and 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.


On the other hand, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, represented by advocate Ejaz Maqbool, had referred to the five-judge Constitution bench judgement 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 top court had on March 12 last year sought the Centre's response to the plea filed by Upadhyay challenging the validity of certain provisions of the law which provide for maintaining the status quo on the ownership and character of religious places as on August 15, 1947.

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.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Lawgic Simplified staff and is posted from a syndicated feed.)
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Patna High Court Declares Bihar’s Reservation Amendments Ultra Vires

  In a landmark decision, the Patna High Court has invalidated the Bihar government's legislative attempt to increase reservations for backward classes. The court's ruling focused on procedural flaws and the absence of a robust empirical basis for the hike, sparking a debate on judicial intervention in affirmative action policies. Background and Rationale Behind Setting Aside Bihar Reservation Increase Law The Bihar government had proposed an increase in reservations to address socio-economic disparities faced by backward classes. However, the court found that the state failed to follow due process, which includes conducting a thorough empirical study to justify the policy change. This procedural oversight led to the court's decision to strike down the increase. The High Court emphasized the necessity of a data-driven approach for policy changes related to reservations. The ruling underscored that without solid empirical evidence, such policies could not be justified within...
Post a Comment
Read more

Pune Porsche Crash: Father of Minor Granted Bail

Image Credit: tv9marathi A Pune court has granted bail to the minor’s father, Vishal Agarwal, who faced charges under the Juvenile Justice Act for neglect and endangering the child by allowing him to drive without a license and consume alcohol. Additionally, bar owners and managers were arrested for serving alcohol to minors. The father, already in custody for other related charges, was implicated in the alleged manipulation of his son’s blood samples and in a separate case of kidnapping his driver. Advocate Prashant Patil argued that Vishal Agarwal's arrest was unlawful, contending that the charges were non-cognizable offenses and required a notice under the Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Patil also highlighted contradictions in police reports, where the minor was listed as the accused in one FIR and as a victim in another.  Also Read:  Delhi High Court Stays Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's Bail in Excise Policy Case Earlier Proceedings in the Pune Porsche Crash Inc...
Post a Comment
Read more

Counsel's failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review: Bombay High Court

By - Sameeksha Negi* The Bombay High Court has observed that “If Counsel has not urged a point, the fact that there were written submissions is immaterial if those written submissions were never in fact argued.” The Bench also added that “Counsel’s failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review or, I dare say, even appeal. It is no ground to assail any order of any judge of any court.”   The bench was hearing a review petition filed for seeking reinstatement of original arbitration petition on grounds some of which were never argued and others never pleaded and the said petition was filed after the original arbitration petition was fully argued, and then decided by pronouncement in open court. Also Read - The Pension Scheme for freedom fighters cannot be construed in a manner that the requirements prescribed are rendered a dead letter: Bombay HC According to Justice GS Patel allowing parties to take grounds in review pleas or in appeals that were not argued initi...
Post a Comment
Read more