NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court will hear a new petition on Tuesday filed by law student Nitin Upadhyaya, challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. This law prevents changing the religious character of places of worship as they were on August 15, 1947.
Upadhyaya argues that the government has exceeded its powers by blocking judicial remedies, which are a fundamental part of the Constitution. He has requested the court to allow legal proceedings to determine the original religious identity of places of worship. He is specifically challenging Section 4(2) of the Act, which stops any legal action to alter a place of worship’s status.
Upadhyaya has also approached the Supreme Court against its previous order requiring fresh cases on the matter. The court had earlier allowed some petitioners to file intervention applications in ongoing cases by presenting new legal arguments.
As per the Supreme Court’s cause list, uploaded on March 31, Upadhyaya’s case is set to be heard by a two-judge bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar.
The law prohibits the conversion of any place of worship and ensures that their religious character remains the same as it was on August 15, 1947.
During a hearing in February, the Supreme Court expressed concern over the rising number of intervention applications. "Too many petitions filed. There is a limit to interventions being filed," the Chief Justice-led bench said.
Apart from multiple petitions in court, the Indian National Congress (INC) has also approached the Supreme Court to oppose the challenges against the Places of Worship Act and to intervene in these cases. The INC has supported the law, arguing that it is essential for maintaining communal harmony in India. The court is expected to hear the related cases on February 17.
The INC stated in its plea that the law does not violate religious freedom and is crucial for upholding secularism in the country. "The POW Act is enacted by the Parliament, as it reflects the mandate of the Indian populace. In fact, the POW Act had been envisaged prior to the year 1991 and the same is made a part of the Applicant's then Election Manifesto for the Parliamentary elections. The POW Act 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 INC said in its submission to the court.
Some petitions have challenged the constitutional validity of the Act, while others have demanded its strict enforcement.
Several political parties, including the CPI (M), Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), NCP (Sharad Pawar group) MLA Jitendra Awhad, RJD MP Manoj Kumar Jha, MP Thol Thirumavalavan, and AIMIM Chief Asaduddin Owaisi, have also sought to intervene in support of the law.
The Supreme Court is handling multiple petitions, including one by BJP leader and lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who has asked the court to strike down Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Places of Worship Act. Another petition was filed by former Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy, who wants the court to modify certain provisions of the law to allow Hindus to claim ownership of the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah Mosque in Mathura.
The law strictly prohibits changing the religious character of any place of worship and ensures that their status remains the same as it was on August 15, 1947.
