The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutional validity of a provision of the Places of Worship Act, 1991.
In the alternative, a bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar suggested the PIL litigant to move an intervention application in the pending clutch of pleas challenging the validity of the contentious law, which prohibits the filing of a lawsuit to reclaim a place of worship or seek a change in its character from what prevailed on August 15, 1947.
The CJI Khanna-led Special Bench, in an interim order passed on December 12, 2024, ordered that no fresh suits would be registered under the Places of Worship Act in the country, and in the pending cases, no final or effective orders would be passed till further orders.
As per the latest petition filed through advocate Shweta Sinha, Section 4(2) of the 1991 Act is manifestly arbitrary, irrational and violative of Articles 14, 21, 25, and 26 of the Constitution.
“This provision not only closes the doors of mediation but also takes away the power of the judiciary. The legislature cannot take away the power of the judiciary to preside over disputes. This has been done through colourable legislation,” stated the plea.
In March 2021, a Bench headed by then Chief Justice of India S.A. Bobde sought the Centre’s response to the plea filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay challenging the validity of certain provisions of the law, prohibiting the filing of a lawsuit to reclaim a place of worship or seek a change in its character from what prevailed on August 15, 1947.
The plea said: “The 1991 Act was enacted in the garb of ‘public order’, which is a state subject (Schedule-7, List-II, Entry-1) and ‘places of pilgrimages within India’ is also a state subject (Schedule-7, List-II, Entry-7). So, the Centre can’t enact the Law.
Moreover, Article 13(2) prohibits the State from making a law to take away fundamental rights, but the 1991 Act takes away the rights of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs, to restore their ‘places of worship and pilgrimages’, destroyed by barbaric invaders.” “The Act excludes the birthplace of Lord Rama but includes the birthplace of Lord Krishna, though both are incarnations of Lord Vishnu, the creator and equally worshipped throughout the world, hence, it is arbitrary,” it added.
