Supreme Court Declines To Entertain Fresh Plea Against Places Of Worship Act

The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a fresh petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, stating that it would not allow multiple proceedings on the same issue.

Court’s Observation

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar dismissed the plea, observing, “This is the same plea. Stop filing petitions and applications.” The court rejected attempts to distinguish the new petition from earlier ones, emphasizing the need to consolidate related legal proceedings.

However, the bench granted petitioner Nitin Upadhyay, a law student, the liberty to file an application in the existing batch of cases where the Act’s constitutional validity is already under scrutiny.

Upadhyay’s petition specifically questioned the validity of Section 4(2) of the Act, which prohibits legal proceedings aimed at altering the religious character of any place of worship as it stood on August 15, 1947. He argued that this provision infringes upon the basic structure of the Constitution by restricting judicial remedies and curbing individuals’ fundamental rights.

Furthermore, Upadhyay claimed that structural modifications should be permissible to restore a site’s original religious identity. He also contended that the law does not explicitly prohibit scientific or documentary surveys for such restoration purposes.

Historical Context Of Act

Enacted by the Parliament during P.V. Narasimha Rao’s tenure, the Act was introduced in the aftermath of the Ayodhya Ram Mandir movement. It effectively froze the religious status of places of worship as they existed on India’s Independence Day, with an exception for the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute, which was already under litigation and was later demolished in 1992.

Following the Supreme Court’s 2019 verdict, a Ram temple has since been constructed at the Ayodhya site. However, the Act continues to act as a legal barrier against attempts to alter the status of other disputed religious sites, including the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah in Mathura and the Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi.

Notably, the law does not apply to ancient monuments or archaeological sites protected under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.

Supreme Court’s Interim Stay & Ongoing Review

In a significant interim order dated December 12, 2024, the Supreme Court restrained courts across India from registering new suits or ordering surveys concerning the religious character of existing religious structures. This stay impacted ongoing legal proceedings related to disputes such as the Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi mosque, Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah, and others.

The Court clarified that it is actively reviewing both the validity and the scope of the 1991 Act, underscoring its role in addressing the complex legal and constitutional issues involved.

Political & Legal Debate Surrounding The Act

The legal battle has attracted significant political attention. The Congress Party has approached the Supreme Court to defend the Act, arguing that it is essential for maintaining India’s secular fabric and communal harmony. The party contends that the Act reflects the will of the people and aligns with secular principles enshrined in the Constitution.

Conversely, several political leaders and parties, including BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay and former Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy, have challenged the Act. Upadhyay argues that the law discriminates against Hindu, Sikh, Jain, and Buddhist communities by permanently freezing the religious character of disputed sites, while making an exception for Ayodhya. Swamy seeks amendments to allow Hindus to claim ownership of sites like the Gyanvapi Mosque and the Shahi Idgah Mosque.

Additionally, groups such as the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), and AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi have supported the Act, emphasizing the need to preserve India’s secularism.

With the Supreme Court’s decision to limit fresh petitions, the focus now shifts to the ongoing cases under review. The outcome will likely have far-reaching implications not only for religious disputes but also for the broader interpretation of constitutional rights and secularism in India.

As the legal and political debate continues, the Supreme Court’s final judgment will play a pivotal role in shaping the future of religious and cultural heritage laws in the country.