Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to consider a writ petition filed by AIMIM President Asaduddin Owaisi, seeking implementation of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The Act mandates that the religious character of a place of worship shall remain as it existed on August 15, 1947. The Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar directed that Owaisi’s plea be tagged with existing matters challenging the Act. The hearing has been listed for February 17, 2025.

Advocate Nizam Pasha, representing Owaisi, submitted during the hearing that the petition should be considered along with related cases. The Chief Justice stated, "We will tag this," while issuing directions.

The writ petition, filed on December 17, 2024, through Advocate Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, seeks directions to the Central Government for implementing the provisions of the 1991 Act. It further points to instances of courts ordering surveys of mosques based on petitions from Hindu litigants, allegedly in violation of the statute. On December 18, 2024, the Supreme Court, while hearing related cases, restrained courts nationwide from registering new suits or issuing interim or final orders regarding the reclamation of religious places. The Bench remarked, "As the matter is sub-judice in this court, we deem it appropriate that no fresh suit would be registered and proceedings are undertaken till further orders of this court."

The Supreme Court’s order impacted approximately 18 lawsuits filed by Hindu parties, seeking surveys to determine the original character of places of worship, including Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi and Shahi Idgah Mosque in Mathura. Four fatalities were reported in clashes at Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal, a site among those under dispute.

Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Kumar Jha recently submitted an intervention application supporting the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. Filed through Advocate-on-Record Fauzia Shakil, the application contends that the Act aligns with the constitutional principles articulated in the Preamble and Articles 14, 15, 25, 26, and 51A. It asserts, "The Act serves as a legislative guarantee to protect religious structures and reinforces the obligations of a secular State, ensuring equality among religions." The intervention raises concerns about increasing instances of using religion for political purposes, describing it as a threat to constitutional values. The application states, "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."

The Central Government was previously directed by the Supreme Court on January 9, 2023, to file its response to public interest litigations challenging certain provisions of the Act. The Court had granted an extension until October 31, 2023, for filing replies. Six petitions, including those filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay and former Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy, challenge provisions of the Act. Upadhyay seeks to nullify Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Act, alleging they deprive individuals and religious groups of judicial remedies. Swamy’s petition, in contrast, requests a "reading down" of the provisions to allow Hindu claims over sites like Gyanvapi Mosque and Shahi Idgah Mosque.

The Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, represented by Advocate Ejaz Maqbool, referred to the five-judge Constitution Bench ruling in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case, contending that the Act was upheld therein. The petition claims, "The 1991 law creates an arbitrary and irrational retrospective cut-off date of August 15, 1947, to preserve the character of places of worship." The Act prohibits altering the religious character of any place of worship as of the specified date, with an exception for the Ayodhya dispute.

Case Title: Asaduddin Owaisi v. Union of India

Case No.: Writ Petition (C) No. 846/2024

Bench: Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar