Questions on Places of Worship Act remain pending in SC for four years

Muslim parties in the case had pointed out that how the Ayodhya judgment had observed that the 1991 Act spoke ‘to our history and to the future of the nation’

The last order available in the Supreme Court website about a pending case centred on The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991, a statute that has protected the identity and character of religious sites since Independence, is from a year ago.

The case involves a slew of petitions challenging the legality of the 1991 Act. The petitioners, including advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, blamed the 1991 law of barring Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs from approaching courts to “reclaim” their places of worship which were “invaded” and “encroached” upon by “fundamentalist barbaric invaders”.

The Supreme Court website shows the case as being previously listed before Registrar H. Shashidhara Shetty on November 30, 2023. The three-page order merely recorded the Union government’s lack of response, yet again, on the issue.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board however had not been silent. The Board had asked the court how petitions like these, in the guise of public interest petitions, could be allowed to challenge a Central legislation which had guarded the spirit of fraternity and secularism, Preambular virtues and parts of the Basic Structure of the Constitution, through protection of the religious character of religious places.

The Muslim parties in the case had pointed out to the court that even the Ayodhya judgment had observed that the 1991 Act spoke “to our history and to the future of the nation… In preserving the character of places of public worship, the Parliament has mandated in no uncertain terms that history and its wrongs shall not be used as instruments to oppress the present and the future”.

But the Centre has chosen to remain tight-lipped till date in the four-year-old case.

The frozen case and the silence that surrounds it in the apex court contrasts with the frenetic judicial interventions by local courts in States like Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh in civil suits challenging the origins and character of mosques.

A Rajasthan court has issued notice to the Minority Affairs Ministry and Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in a suit filed by a Hindu organisation claiming “historical evidence” to prove that the Ajmer Sharif Dargah of Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti was built over a Shiva temple.

In Sambhal district of Uttar Pradesh, a civil court ex parte ordered a survey after a suit was filed claiming that the Shahi Jama Masjid at Chandausi was built by Mughal emperor Babar in 1526 after demolishing a temple.

In August 2023, the apex court itself did not stop a local court order to have the ASI continue with their “scientific investigation” of the Gyanvapi mosque premises in Varanasi, provided there was no excavation or damage to the structure. An earlier local court order for an survey by advocate commissioner of the mosque had led to the discovery of a “shivling” in the mosque grounds.

In January this year, the apex court had stepped in to stay an order of the Allahabad High Court, which had allowed an advocate commissioner to survey the Shahi Eidgah after claims were made that the mosque lay over Lord Krishna’s birthplace at Mathura in Uttar Pradesh.

On Friday, senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadia, appearing for the Sambhal mosque management committee, said there were at least 10 civil suits challenging the origins of mosques. These surveys were part of a “modus operandi”, he submitted.

His words echoed that of the Anjuman Intazamia Masajid, the Gyanvapi mosque management committee, which had called such surveys “salami tactics” of “one slice at a time”. Mr. Ahmadi, who appears for the Muslim parties in both Gyanvapi and Sambhal cases, has urged the court to flex the provisions of the Places of Worship Act to put a stop to such claims.

But, in one instance, when he had asked how the courts could allow people to file such “frivolous” suits, the then Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud retorted, “What is frivolous for you may be faith for them… how can we comment on that?”

Published - November 29, 2024 07:33 pm IST