On December 12, the Supreme Court issued a directive prohibiting the registration of new lawsuits concerning places of worship in the country until further orders are issued by the Court.

The Court also instructed that no effective interim or final orders, including those relating to surveys, be passed in pending cases, such as those involving the Gyanvapi Mosque, Mathura Shahi Idgah, and Sambhal Jama Masjid. This interim order was delivered during the hearing of a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The Court’s intervention comes amid increasing concerns over the proliferation of lawsuits asserting ownership of historical mosques and dargahs. Notably, a survey order issued by a trial court concerning a 16th-century mosque in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, triggered violent clashes in November, resulting in at least four fatalities.

The special bench, comprising of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justices Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan, articulated the following directive: "As the matter is sub-judice before this Court, we deem it appropriate to direct that while suits may be filed, no suits would be registered and proceedings undertaken till further orders of this Court. We also direct that in the pending suits, the Courts would not pass any effective interim orders or final orders, including orders of survey till the next date of hearing."

Despite this, the Supreme Court declined to halt ongoing proceedings in cases concerning mosques and dargahs. Additionally, the Court directed the Union Government to submit its counter-affidavit addressing the petitions challenging the Places of Worship Act within four weeks. To ensure accessibility, the Court ordered the counter-affidavit to be made available online for public download.

During the proceedings, the bench was informed that 18 cases involving 10 mosques or shrines are currently pending across the country. Justice Viswanathan, addressing Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, remarked, "Mr SG, plea challenges the constitutionality of the Act...there is a larger question...one of the arguments you have to meet...S.3 one view is it is only an effective reiteration of already embedded constitutional principles...Civil courts can't run a race with the Supreme Court. That is why there has to be a stay. You have a judgment of 5 judges..."

The petitions under consideration challenge the constitutional validity of the 1991 Act, which prohibits altering the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947. The lead petition, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, was filed in 2020, and the Court issued notice to the Union Government in March 2021. Subsequently, several additional petitions were filed challenging the same legislation.

A separate writ petition by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, seeking the enforcement of the Act, was also listed for consideration. Various political organizations, including the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Indian Union Muslim League, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), Rashtriya Janata Dal MP Manoj Kumar Jha, and Nationalist Congress Party MLA Jitendra Awhad, have filed intervention applications advocating for the preservation of the Act.

Despite multiple extensions granted by the Court, the Union Government has not yet submitted its counter-affidavit. The Places of Worship Act has garnered significant public attention recently, especially following the violent unrest linked to the survey of the Sambhal Jama Masjid. To streamline the legal process, the Supreme Court appointed Advocates Kanu Agarwal, Vishnu Shankar Jain, and Ejaz Maqbool as nodal counsel to compile submissions for the Union Government, petitioners, and parties supporting the Act, respectively.

Cause Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v/s UOI And Ors.

Case No: WP(C) No. 1246/2020

Bench: Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, Justice K.V. Viswanathan