The Supreme Court of India is all set to settle the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 through Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1246/2020 and on 12/12/2024 directed all district courts of India not to will pass any effective interim orders or final orders, including orders directing surveys, etc., till the next date of hearing/further orders of this Court.

New Delhi (ABC Live): The Supreme Court of India is all set to settle the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 through Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1246/2020 and on 12/12/2024 directed all district courts of India not to will pass any effective interim orders or final orders, including orders directing surveys, etc., till the next date of hearing/further orders of this Court.

ABC legal research team reports as under;

Through this petition, the petitioner, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, has made several prayers to the Supreme Court of India. These are aimed at declaring specific sections of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, as unconstitutional and void. Here's a summary of the petitioner's prayers:

Declaration of Sections 2, 3, and 4 as Void and Unconstitutional:

The petitioner requests the Court to declare that Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, are unconstitutional for violating fundamental rights guaranteed under:

Article 14 (Equality before the law),

Article 15 (Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, etc.),

Article 21 (Right to life and personal liberty),

Article 25 (Freedom to practice and propagate religion),

Article 26 (Freedom to manage religious affairs), and

Article 29 (Protection of cultural and educational rights).

Challenge to Legalization of Structures by Invaders:

The petitioner argues that the Act validates religious structures built by invaders, which violates the principles of secularism and fairness.

Restoration of Rights for Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs:

The petitioner seeks recognition of the rights of these communities to reclaim, restore, and manage places of worship that were encroached upon or destroyed during historical invasions.

Uniform Treatment of Religious Places:

The petitioner highlights the exclusion of the Ayodhya dispute from the Act's purview and prays for a consistent approach to other sites, such as Krishna Janmabhoomi in Mathura and Kashi Vishwanath in Varanasi.

Removal of Retrospective Cutoff Date:

The petitioner seeks the removal of August 15, 1947, as the cutoff date, arguing that it arbitrarily bars claim to restore historical sites of religious significance.

Right to Judicial Remedies:

The petitioner prays for the restoration of the right to approach courts to seek legal remedies concerning disputes over places of worship.

Protection of Cultural and Religious Heritage:

The petitioner emphasizes the duty of the state under Articles 49 and 51A(f) to protect and preserve India's cultural and religious heritage. The Act, it is argued, undermines this duty by preventing the restoration of historically significant sites.

Specific Reliefs Sought:

Direct the Union of India to declare Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Act as unconstitutional and void.

Permit the filing of suits and proceedings to reclaim religious sites and address encroachments.

Ensure equal treatment of all places of worship, irrespective of religious affiliation.

Uphold the fundamental rights of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs to manage and restore their religious places.

Key Provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991

1. Section 3: Prohibits conversion of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947.
2. Section 4(1): Declares that the religious character of such places shall remain as it was on the cutoff date.
3. Section 4(2): Nullifies pending legal cases and prohibits filing new ones concerning the conversion of religious places.

Case Law

Sundarlal Patwa v. Union of India (1994): The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Act, emphasizing its role in preserving communal harmony.

Ayodhya Verdict (2019):

Though exempt from the Act, the Supreme Court referred to the legislation as an embodiment of India’s secular ethos. The judgment acknowledged the importance of the Act in maintaining the sanctity of places of worship.

Vishwa Bhadra Pujari Purohit Mahasangh v. Union of India (2020):

A PIL challenging the constitutional validity of the Act argued that it violated Articles 14, 25, and 26. The Supreme Court is yet to provide a conclusive ruling, leaving the Act’s future uncertain.

Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India (1994):

The Supreme Court held that while the Ram Janmabhoomi dispute was exempt from the Act, the principles of secularism emphasized by the legislation align with India’s constitutional vision. This case also stressed that religious structures have cultural and historical importance that the law seeks to protect.

Mahant Ram Swarup Das v. S.P. Sahi (1959):

This case highlighted that the property of a deity is never lost, even if encroached upon for centuries. This precedent supports the petitioner’s claim that illegally occupied places of worship must be restored to their original religious character.

Rama Reddy v. Ranga Reddy (1925):

The Court held that properties endowed to deities are perpetually vested in the deity and cannot be adversely possessed by any individual or group. This principle strengthens the petitioner’s argument for restoring temples and religious sites to their original status.

L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997):

The Supreme Court ruled that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution. The petitioner relies on this to argue that the Act’s provisions barring judicial remedies for certain disputes infringe on the Constitution’s basic structure.

Today, the Supreme Court of India will hear the case third time and ABC legal research team is keeping watch on this case and update accordingly thereafter.