NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday said no new litigation over the religious nature of buildings can be registered until it rules on the validity of the Places of Worship Act, 1991. Any valid interim or final order issued by the court in an ongoing case involving an existing case, including investigative directions religious structure.
“We are of the view that there should be a direction that no fresh proceedings be registered or proceedings ordered. In pending proceedings, the civil court cannot issue a valid interim order or final order, including an inquiry order, until the next hearing,” said the Chief Justice of India (CJI) ) a bench headed by Sanjiv Khanna observed.
A three-judge bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan was hearing a batch of public interest litigation (PIL) Questioning validity of certain provisions Places of Worship Act 1991.
The Supreme Court was told that there are currently 18 cases pending across the country involving 10 mosques or shrines.
The bench also gave the central government four weeks to file an affidavit in response to a host of petitions challenging specific provisions of the Places of Religion (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.
The outcome of the case could affect ongoing litigation by Hindu plaintiffs seeking rights to properties containing Muslim mosques on the grounds that they were built on ancient temples.
The cases include disputes involving Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhar, Gyanwapi Masjid in Varanasi, Shahi Edgar Masjid in Mathura and Ajmer Dargah Masjid in Rajasthan. Muslim political parties have challenged the validity of such proceedings, citing the Places of Worship Act.
What is the Places of Worship Act?
The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 prohibits alteration of places of worship and provides for the maintenance of the religious character as it existed on 15 August 1947. Ram Janmabhumi This formed the basis of the Supreme Court’s 2019 judgment in the Ayodhya case, awarding disputed land in Ayodhya to the child god Ram Lalla.
What does the petition say?
The petition argued that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act is arbitrary and held that: one) There is no good reason to set August 15, 1947 as the deadline, and b) There is no logical connection between India’s political independence, the formation of a republic, and the resolution of the clash of civilizations arising from the colonial suppression of Hindu identity and the cultural domination imposed by the Islamic invaders.
