A day before a special bench of the Supreme Court is set to hear a batch of petitions challenging the Places of Worship Act, 1991, the Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind has moved the court seeking an “effective and proper” enforcement of the Act and the law laid down in the 2019 unanimous judgment by a five-judge constitution bench in Ayodhya’s Ram Janmabhoomi mandir case.
The 1991 Places of Worship Act, 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.
Stating that in “blatant violation” of the 1991 law, the Muslim religious places are being made the subject matter of frivolous controversies and suits, which are patently barred under the 1991 Places of Worship Act, the Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind in its petition has said, “However, despite the existence of a statutory bar, such proceedings are being permitted to proceed, often with interim orders altering the status quo which has been maintained for ages in such Muslim places of worship.”
The Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind has said that interference with the Muslim religious places is not only creating a “feeling of ill-will, hatred and enmity between the communities but is also violating the fundamental rights of the Muslim Community under Articles 14, 21, 25, 26 and 29” of the constitution.
The petition by the Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind further states that post 2019 Ayodhya judgment by the Supreme Court there has been a numerous suits that are being filed averring that “places of worship which are presently Muslim in character like mosques and tombs” since August 15, 1947, have been erected by “destroying Hindu Temples and/or places of worship” and a common averment is that Muslim Invaders such as Mughal emperors have built Muslim places of worship such as Masjids after destroying the Hindu places of worship such as Temples many years before August 15, 1947.
Referring to 2019 Ayodhya judgment, the petition says that even if all these allegations that Muslim invaders destroyed the Hindu places of worship and built mosques and tombs are assumed to be true, it is nothing but seeking retrogression, which, as held by the Supreme Court is against the essential feature of our secular values.
The petition says that 2019 Ayodhya judgment has categorically held that the “law cannot be used as a device to reach back in time and provide a legal remedy to every person who disagrees with the course which history has taken and that the courts of today cannot take cognizance of historical rights and wrongs unless it is shown that their legal consequences are enforceable in the present.”
In view of 2019 Ayodhya judgment, the Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind petition says that these law “suits which rest on the basis that Muslim Invaders allegedly converted the Hindu Places of Worship, cannot be entertained in view of the law laid down by the 5 Judges Constitution Bench” of the Supreme Court.
A special bench of the Supreme Court will hear tomorrow (Thursday) a batch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of the certain provisions of Places of Worship (Special Provision) Act, 1991, that prohibit 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.
The petitioners have contended that Section 2, 3, and 4 of the Places of Worship (Special provisions) Act, 1991 are violative of Article 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, and 29 of the constitution, in so far as it legalizes the illegal conversion of the ancient places of worship and pilgrimage into mosques.
The petitioners challenging the constitutionality of the Places of Worship Act include, among others, the daughter of the Kashi Royal Family, Maharaja Kumari Krishna Priya, BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, former Member of Parliament Chintamani Malviya, a retired army officer Anil Kabotra, advocates Chandra Shekhar, Varanasi resident Rudra Vikram Singh, a religious leader Swami Jeetendranand Saraswati, a resident of Mathura and a religious guru Devkinandan Thakur Ji.
Unlike other petitioners, Subramanian Swamy had told the bench that he was not seeking setting aside of the 1991 law but seeking only two more temples be excluded from its ambit of the 1991 law and then it can remain as it is.