Supreme Court refuses to hear fresh plea over 1991 Places of Worship Act

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to hear a fresh plea challenging the validity of a provision of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which mandates maintaining the religious character of a place as it existed on August 15, 1947.

There are over six petitions, including the lead one filed by lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay, challenging various provisions of the 1991 law that are already pending adjudication in the top court.

On Tuesday, a bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was urged by Nitin Upadhyay, a law student, that his plea be also heard alongside pending ones.

“We are not inclined to entertain a fresh PIL under Article 32 of the Constitution,” the CJI said. The bench, however, permitted the law student to file an interim plea for intervening in pending petitions.

The 1991 law prohibits conversion of any place of worship and provides for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947.

However, the dispute relating to the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid at Ayodhya was kept out of its purview.

Upadhyay sought the apex court’s direction allowing courts to pass appropriate orders to ascertain the original religious character of a place of worship.

It has challenged Section 4(2) of the Act that barred proceedings to change the religious character, besides prohibiting filing of fresh cases for the same.

“The Centre has transgressed its legislative power in barring the judicial remedy, which is a basic feature of the Constitution. It is well established that the right to judicial remedy by filing suit in a competent court, cannot be barred and the power of courts cannot be abridged and such denial has been held to be violative of basic feature of the Constitution, beyond legislative power,” the plea said.

The plea, filed through advocate Shweta Sinha, said the law mandated preservation and maintenance of the religious character of places of worship without barring changes in the “structure, edifice, construction or building” in these places.

It said, “Structural change is permissible to restore the original religious character of the place.” The Act did not prohibit any scientific or documentary survey to ascertain the religious character of the place, the plea added.