The Supreme Court, on Monday, adjourned for April the hearing on a batch of cross -petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship Act, 1991 and others defending and seeking proper and effective enforcement of the 1991 law that 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.

Posting the matter for hearing in the week commencing April 1, Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, heading a bench also comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar, said that the matter requires hearing by a three-judge bench and also expressed concern over the growing number of petitions and applications being filed relating to challenge and defence of the Places of Worship Act, 1991.

Advertisement

The matter is being heard by a bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K.V. Viswanathan. Today Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna was sitting in a combination of two judge bench with Justice Sanjay Kumar.

At the outset of the hearing today morning as senior advocate Indira Jaising mentioned the matter for the framing of the questions to be adjudicated, Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna said, “It won’t be taken today. It’s a three-judge bench matter. We are in a two-judge bench combination today.”

CJI Khanna remarked that the case would be heard “sometime in March”.

CJI Khanna also took exception to many intervention applications being filed in the matter and also similar writ petitions either challenging the 1991 law or seeking the “proper and effective” implementation of the Places of Worship Act.

He said there should be a limit to such applications.

Later in the day, the bench passed a short order clarifying that all fresh petitions in the case would stand dismissed but these petitioners would have the liberty to file applications raising new grounds in the pending matter.

In the last hearing of the petitions on December 12, 2024, the Supreme Court had restrained all the courts across the country from passing any effective interim or final order including that of the surveys in pending suits staking a claim over the existing religious structures.

By December 12, 2024 order, the bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K.V. Viswanathan had ordered that no fresh suits can be registered making claims over other religious places while the court is hearing cross-petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Section 3 and 4 if the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 and others seeking “effective and proper” enforcement of the 1991 law.

Indian National Congress Party, CPI (ML), All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen (AIMIM) head Asaduddin Owaisi, Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind, India Muslim Personal Law Board, Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masjid which manages the mosque in the Gyanvapi complex, Shahi Idgah mosque committee of Mathura — among others have filed applications against the petitions challenging the validity of certain provisions of a 1991 law and seeking the enforcement of the 1991 law.

The petitioners, including BJP leaders Subramanian Swamy, an advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay and others, have challenged the constitutionality of the 1991 law contending Section 3, and 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provision) Act, 1991, is void and unconstitutional as it has taken away the right to approach the Court and deprives Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs to take back their places of worship and pilgrimage connected with their cultural heritage (Article 29) and it also restricts them from restoring the possession of their places of worship.

The 1991 law, the petitions challenging it, say violates the principles of secularism and rule of law, which is an integral part of the Preamble and basic structure of the Constitution.

However, the Congress Party defending the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 (POWA), in its intervention application has said that the law is essential to safeguard secularism and any alterations to it could jeopardize India’s communal harmony and secular fabric and threaten its sovereignty and integrity.

The Congress party in its application has said that it is intervening in the matter “… to emphasize the constitutional and societal significance of the POWA, as it apprehends that any alterations to it could jeopardize India’s communal harmony and secular fabric thereby threatening the sovereignty and integrity of the nation.”

Stating that the Places of Worship Act, 1991, was enacted by the Parliament, as it reflected the mandate of the Indian populace, the Congress Party in its application has said, “In fact, the POWA had been envisaged prior to the year 1991 and the same was made a part of the Congress’ then election manifesto for the Parliamentary elections. The POWA is essential to safeguard secularism in India and the present challenge appears to be a motivated and malicious attempt to undermine established principles of secularism.”

The Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind in its petition has sought an “effective and proper” enforcement of the Places of Worship (Special Provision) Act, 1991 and the law laid down in the 2019 unanimous judgment by a five-judge constitution bench in Ayodhya’s Ram Janmabhoomi temple – Babri Masjid case.

Stating that in “blatant violation” of the 1991 law, the Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind in its petition has said that 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.