The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to hear a fresh plea challenging the validity of a provision of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 that mandates maintaining the religious character of a place as it existed on August 15, 1947.

Not allowing the fresh petition challenging the 1991 law, a bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, however, permitted the petitioner to move an application in the already pending matters.

Advertisement

The top court is hearing a batch of cross-petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provision) Act, 1991 and others defending and seeking proper and effective enforcement of the 1991 law that 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 cross-petitions are being heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K.V. Viswanathan. On February 17, 2025 – the last date of the listing of the petitions -the hearing could not take place as Chief Justice Khanna was sitting in a combination of two-judge bench along with Justice Sanjay Khanna.

The petitions – far and against – the 1991 law are likely to be listed next week.

On February 17, 2025, the CJI Khanna took exception to many intervention applications being filed in the matter and also similar writ petitions either challenging the 1991 law or seeking the “proper and effective” implementation of the Places of Worship Act.

He said that there should be a limit to such applications.

In the last hearing of the petitions on December 12, 2024, the Supreme Court had restrained all the courts across the country from passing any effective interim or final order including that of the surveys in pending suits staking a claim over the existing religious structures.

By December 12, 2024, order, bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K.V. Viswanathan had ordered that no fresh suits can be registered making claims over other religious places while the court is hearing cross-petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Section 3 and 4 if the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 and others seeking “effective and proper” enforcement of the 1991 law.

Indian National Congress Party, CPI(ML), All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen (AIMIM) head Asaduddin Owaisi, Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind, India Muslim Personal Law Board, Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masjid which manages the mosque in the Gyanvapi complex, Shahi Idgah mosque committee of Mathura — among others have filed applications against the petitions challenging the validity of certain provisions of a 1991 law and seeking the enforcement of the 1991 law.

The petitioners including BJP leaders Subramanian Swamy, an advocate  Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay and others have challenged the constitutionality of the 1991 law contending  Section  3, and 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provision) Act, 1991, is void and unconstitutional as it has taken away the right to approach the Court and deprives Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs to take back their places of worship and pilgrimage connected with their cultural heritage (Article 29) and it also restricts them from restoring the possession of their places of worship.

The 1991 law, the petitions challenging it, say violates the principles of secularism and rule of law, which is an integral part of the Preamble and basic structure of the Constitution.

However, the Congress Party defending the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 (POWA), in its intervention application has said that the law is essential to safeguard secularism and any alterations to it could jeopardize India’s communal harmony and secular fabric and threaten its sovereignty and integrity.

The Congress Party in its application has said that it is intervening in the matter “… to emphasize the constitutional and societal significance of the POWA, as it apprehends that any alterations to it could jeopardize India’s communal harmony and secular fabric thereby threatening the sovereignty and integrity of the nation.”

Stating that the Places of Worship Act, 1991 was enacted by the Parliament, as it reflected the mandate of the Indian populace, the Congress Party in its application has said, “In fact, the POWA had been envisaged prior to the year 1991 and the same was made a part of the Congress’ then election manifesto for the Parliamentary elections. The POWA is essential to safeguard secularism in India and the present challenge appears to be a motivated and malicious attempt to undermine established principles of secularism.”

The Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind in its petition has sought an “effective and proper” enforcement of the Places of Worship (Special Provision) Act, 1991 and the law laid down in the 2019 unanimous judgment by a five-judge constitution bench in Ayodhya’s Ram Janmabhoomi temple – Babri Masjid case.

Stating that in “blatant violation” of the 1991 law, the Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind in its petition has said that the Muslim religious places are being made the subject matter of frivolous controversies and suits, which are patently barred under the 1991 Places of Worship Act.