The Supreme Court is expected to review requests against the Places of Worship Act in March. It stated that only a few intervention applications will be allowed.

The Supreme Court announced today that it will set a date in March 2025 to hear several petitions against the Places of Worship Act, 1991, including the development of legal questions for review. Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna mentioned that the case cannot be addressed right away due to the high number of petitions. He noted, “The Places of Worship Act matter may not be heard today, considering the number of petitions filed. We will need to schedule a date in March for the hearing and for framing questions.” Regarding new intervention petitions, the CJI pointed out that there is a limit on how many can be accepted due to the backlog of cases. “We will provide a date when it is their turn,” he added.

Additionally, a new petition has been submitted by Samajwadi Party leader and MP Iqra Choudhary, requesting the enforcement of the Places of Worship Act 1991, which is on the agenda for the Bench led by the CJI. In January, the Indian National Congress (INA) filed an Intervention Application in the ongoing challenge to the validity of Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 (POWA). The INA, claiming to be the oldest active political party in the country and the main opposition in Parliament, has requested permission to intervene in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1246 of 2020, which was filed by BJP leader Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, challenging the constitutional validity of the Act. The INA’s application states, “The Applicant seeks to intervene in this matter to highlight the constitutional and societal importance of the POWA, as it fears that any changes could threaten India’s communal harmony and secular nature, thereby endangering the nation’s sovereignty and integrity.”

The application was backed by an affidavit from KC Venugopal, General Secretary in charge of Organization for the AICC. Earlier in January, the Akhil Bhartiya Sant Samiti approached the Supreme Court, asking for a ruling that Sections 3 and 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, are invalid and unconstitutional. The group argued that these sections violate several fundamental rights in the Constitution, including Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, and 29. Represented by General Secretary Swami Jeetendranand Sarswatee, the Samiti claims that the Act’s provisions hinder the rights of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs to reclaim places of worship taken by historical invaders.

On January 2, the Supreme Court agreed to review a request from AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi for better enforcement of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. This Act requires that the religious character of any place of worship be preserved as it was on August 15, 1947. The Communist Party of India (CPI) submitted a request to the Supreme Court in the case of Ashwini Upadhyay, supporting the 1991 Act. They argued that the claim of temple destruction by invaders is not universally accepted and noted that Hindu rulers have also destroyed Buddhist monasteries. The application states that the Act provides legal protection for religious structures and reinforces the duties of a secular state, ensuring equality among religions. It claims that the Act does not infringe on any fundamental rights in Part III of the Constitution and instead promotes secularism. Jha’s request highlights concerns about the increasing use of religion for political gain and the risks this poses to constitutional values. It notes that recent events of using religion to divide communities and promote a divisive agenda have put dissent and diversity at risk.

Manoj Kumar Jha, a Rajya Sabha MP from the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), has recently submitted an application to intervene in the Supreme Court. He supports the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The application, filed by Advocate Fauzia Shakil, claims that the 1991 Act is in line with the constitutional values found in the Preamble and Articles 14, 15, 25, 26, and 51A. It argues that the Act upholds secular principles and is crucial for maintaining communal harmony by keeping the status of places of worship as they were on August 15, 1947.

Additionally, on December 18, 2024, the Supreme Court, while reviewing similar petitions against the 1991 law, ordered all courts to stop accepting new cases and to refrain from making any interim or final decisions in ongoing cases related to reclaiming religious sites, especially mosques and dargahs. The Chief Justice’s bench stated, “Since the matter is under consideration in this court, we find it suitable that no new suits will be registered and no proceedings will take place until further notice.” Consequently, the Supreme Court has paused about 18 lawsuits from various Hindu groups that are seeking surveys to determine the original religious status of 10 mosques, including Gyanvapi in Varanasi, Shahi Idgah Masjid in Mathura, and Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal, where four people lost their lives in recent clashes.

In July 2023, the Court allowed the Centre until October 31 to respond to several petitions challenging parts of a 1991 law that prevents lawsuits to reclaim places of worship or change their status as of August 15, 1947. Earlier, on January 9, 2023, the Supreme Court had instructed the central government to reply to public interest litigations (PILs) regarding some sections of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, giving it until the end of February to do so. The Court is currently reviewing six petitions, including those from Ashwini Upadhyay and former Rajya Sabha MP Swamy, who are contesting the law’s provisions.

Upadhyay is asking for Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Act to be annulled, arguing that they deny the right to seek judicial remedy for reclaiming a place of worship. The Supreme Court previously noted that the challenges to certain provisions could be sent to a five-judge Constitution bench for further examination. Swamy is seeking to have the Court “read down” specific provisions to allow Hindus to claim the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah Mosque in Mathura, while Upadhyay argues that the entire law is unconstitutional, making the question of reading down irrelevant. The Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, represented by Advocate Ejaz Maqbool, cited the five-judge Constitution bench ruling in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case, stating that the 1991 Act has already been addressed there and cannot be invalidated now.

The petition claimed that the 1991 law sets an “arbitrary and irrational” cut-off date of August 15, 1947, for protecting the character of places of worship from encroachment by “fundamentalist invaders and law-breakers.” This law prevents any changes to the status of places of worship as they were on August 15, 1947, and addresses related issues. The only exception made by the law concerns the dispute over the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid in Ayodhya.

Cause Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 001246 /2020; Diary No. 23509/2020]