Challenges to Places of Worship Act, 1991 | Day 3: SC says “enough is enough” amidst flood of new pleas
Constitutionality of the Places of Worship ActJudges: Sanjiv Khanna CJI, P.V. Sanjay Kumar J
Background
Lawyer and politician Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay filed a petition challenging the Act in 2020. Section 3 of the Act criminalises ‘conversion’ of a place of worship for one religion or sect into another. Section 4 declares that the character of a place of worship will be determined as it was on 15 August 1947. It also bars Courts from determining whether any place of worship has been converted after 15 August 1947. Section 5 excludes the application of the Act to the site known as ‘Ram Janma Bhumi’ or ‘Babri Masjid’.
The petition asks the Court to strike down Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Act as unconstitutional on the ground that it bars judicial review which is a basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be taken away. The petition alleged that the Act violates the principle of secularism which is a basic feature of the Constitution. The petition implies the Act shows preference to one religious community.
Upadhyay, in his petition, contended that the choice of date adversely impacts Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists. He argued that Muslims and the British had destroyed temples from 1192 onwards. By freezing the date in 1947, the Act does not allow these communities to restore their places of worship. This violates Articles 14 and 15 which guarantee equality and Article 21, the right to life. The petition also claims that the Act violates the right to religious freedoms under Articles 25, 26 and 29.
On 7 December 2024, following deadly violence in Sambhal after a district court ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid, and the filing of a litany of suits across district courts disputing the existence of Hindu temples underneath mosques and shrines in North India, CJI Sanjiv Khanna formed a special bench also consisting of Justices P.V. Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan, to hear the case. Subsequently, multiple intervening applications were filed seeking implementation of the legislation.
On Monday 17 February, the Supreme Court deferred the hearing of petitions challenging the Places of Worship Act, 1991. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar voiced strong displeasure over the flood of new intervention applications in the matter.
When several lawyers urged the bench to allow filing of new applications, CJI Khanna firmly remarked, “We might not be able to take it up…There is a limit to which petitions can be filed. Enough is enough. There has to be an end to this.” While dismissing all petitions in which no notice has been issued, he clarified that only those raising new legal grounds would be entertained.
During Monday’s brief hearing, the bench took note of the large number of intervention applications being filed in the main matter, as well a fresh batch of writ petitions either challenging the Act or demanding the Act’s implementation.
The Court was also informed that the Union government has yet to file its counter affidavit in the main matter. However, with only a two-judge combination present, the CJI emphasised that “it’s a three-judge bench matter.” The case is likely to be listed in early April.
The Supreme Court, which had last heard the matter on 12 December 2024, had ordered a courtwide stay on the registration of fresh suits seeking surveys to determine the character of existing religious structures.