The Supreme Court of India is set to hear a series of petitions today challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The special bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and KV Vishwanathan, will take up the matter at 3:30 pm.
The 1991 Act aims to maintain the religious character of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947, and prohibits lawsuits seeking to reclaim or alter their status. However, petitioners have questioned its provisions, claiming they violate fundamental rights and secular principles enshrined in the Constitution.
The petitions argue that the Act infringes upon the rights of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs to reclaim, manage, and restore their places of worship and pilgrimage that were allegedly desecrated during invasions. High-profile petitioners include members of the Kashi Royal Family, BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, former MP Chintamani Malviya, retired army officer Anil Kabotra, and religious leaders such as Swami Jeetendranand Saraswati and Devkinandan Thakur Ji.
The plea claims the Act contravenes Articles 25, 26, and 29 of the Constitution, which safeguard religious freedoms, the right to manage religious affairs, and the preservation of cultural heritage. Petitioners also assert that by fixing August 15, 1947, as the cutoff date, the Act arbitrarily and retrospectively restricts their ability to address historical grievances.
Furthermore, the petitioners allege that the Act discriminates by excluding the birthplace of Lord Rama from its ambit while including the birthplace of Lord Krishna, both revered as incarnations of Lord Vishnu.
Groups opposing the petitions, including Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, and the management committee of the Gyanvapi mosque, argue that entertaining such challenges could lead to an influx of lawsuits targeting mosques and other religious sites across India.
The Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind contends that the Act upholds secularism and aims to prevent communal disharmony by freezing the status of places of worship as of 1947.
Petitioners have contested Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Act. Section 3 prohibits the conversion of a place of worship to a different denomination or faith, while Section 4 bars legal proceedings to alter their status as of August 15, 1947. Critics argue these provisions deny their right to seek judicial remedies and reclaim religious properties.
The petitions emphasize that the Act prevents certain communities from recovering places and properties tied to their religious and cultural heritage, while allowing Muslims to claim properties under the Waqf Act.
(With inputs from ANI)
