SC irked over many fresh pleas on places of worship law, lists pending ones in Apr

New Delhi: The Supreme Court expressed frustration on Monday over the mounting number of petitions concerning the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991, announcing that pending post-notice petitions will be heard by a three-judge bench in April. The law requires that the religious character of places of worship must remain as it existed on August 15, 1947.

Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, sitting alongside Justice Sanjay Kumar, voiced clear concerns about the proliferation of new petitions. “People keep on filing fresh petitions alleging that they have raised new grounds...It will become impossible for us to deal with the petitions besides whatever has already been filed,” the Chief Justice stated.

The court dismissed recently filed petitions that had not yet received notices, including one from Samajwadi Party leader and Kairana MP Iqra Choudhary. However, these petitioners were granted permission to file intervention applications in existing cases, provided they present new legal arguments.

“We are constrained to pass this order after taking note of the number of fresh petitions filed,” the bench declared. “The new IA will only be allowed if there is any new point or legal issue that has not been raised in the pending petitions.”

Senior advocate Dushyant Dave supported the court’s position, advocating against allowing additional pleas on the matter. Another senior counsel, Vikas Singh, representing an earlier petitioner, raised concerns about the central government’s failure to respond to the petitions.

The December 12, 2024 order by the Supreme Court effectively halted proceedings in approximately 18 lawsuits filed by Hindu parties seeking surveys of 10 mosques, including the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah Masjid in Mathura.

The 1991 Act has drawn diverse perspectives from various stakeholders. The Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, a Muslim organisation, advocates for strict implementation of the law to maintain communal harmony and preserve the current status of mosques. Conversely, petitioners like lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay seek to challenge Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Act, arguing that these provisions deny the right to judicial remedy for reclaiming places of worship.

The Gyanvapi Mosque management committee, in its intervention plea, strongly opposed the petitions challenging the Act’s constitutional validity. “The petitions challenging the Act were filed with mischievous intent to facilitate lawsuits against these religious sites, which the 1991 Act currently protected,” the committee argued in its filing.

The law specifically exempts the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute in Ayodhya from its purview while prohibiting the conversion of any other place of worship. Section 3 of the Act addresses the prohibition of conversion of places of worship, while Section 4 deals with declarations regarding the religious character of certain places of worship and restrictions on court jurisdiction.

Several high-profile figures have recently filed petitions seeking effective implementation of the 1991 law, including AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi and representatives from the Congress Party. The Akhil Bhartiya Sant Samiti, a Hindu organisation, has also moved to intervene in cases challenging the law’s validity.

The matter is now scheduled for hearing in the first week of April before a three-judge bench, where the court will examine these complex legal and constitutional questions surrounding the Places of Worship Act.