Places of Worship Act: SC seeks govt reply by Dec 12
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday granted time till December 12 to the Union government to submit a “comprehensive” affidavit to a clutch of petitions challenging the validity of the 1991 Places of Worship Act, as the Centre said it is yet to conclude its consultation and formalise a stand on the issue.
The government needs to come clear whether a review of the Act, which locks the religious identity of a place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947, and makes it punishable to attempt to change its character, is being considered.
If the Centre opts to defend the law as it is, it will have to justify the rationale behind the cut-off date and stopping reclamation of religious places destroyed by Muslim invaders, among others, raised by the petitioners. On Monday, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and justice JB Pardiwala took note of the submissions of solicitor general Tushar Mehta that the Centre’s affidavit could not be filed as he needed some more time for finalising the stand. “I need to consult with the government for filing a detailed counter. I would need consultation at a higher level in the government. If some time can be given, we will file a detailed counter,” Mehta said.
Accepting the S-G’s request, the bench adjourned the hearing on the petitions. It asked the Centre to file a “comprehensive affidavit” by December 12 and fixed the matter for hearing in the first week of January. The Union government was issued a notice by the top court around 20 months ago, but it is yet to convey its stand.
The court had in March 2021 issued a notice on advocate Ashwini Upadhyay’s petition, alleging that the 1991 law violated Article 25 (right to practice and propagate religion) and Article 26 (right to manage religious affairs) of the Constitution, besides being discriminatory by barring religious communities from approaching courts to restore their places of worship. He even questioned the Centre’s power to enact such legislation.
Subsequently, several other petitions and applications were filed on the issue. Muslim bodies such as Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind and All India Muslim Personal Law Board harped upon a declaration in the 2019 Ayodhya verdict which held that the Act is “a legislative intervention which preserves nonretrogression as an essential feature of our secular values.”
The Jamiat’s petition sought enforcement of the 1991 law, complaining: “Muslim places of worship are being made subject matter of frivolous controversies and suits, which are patently barred under the 1991 Act.”
Upadhyay and Vishwa Bhadra Pujari Purohit Mahasangh, on the other hand, have argued that the top court was not dealing with the 1991 Act in the Ayodhya land dispute and what was said was just obiter dicta (observations made in the passing). On October 12, S-G Mehta, when asked by the bench for his personal views on the impact of observations made by a five-judge bench in the Ayodhya verdict, said that the various issues raised on the validity of the 1991 Act may not be covered.