Supreme Court Expresses Concern Over Multiple Fresh Pleas on Places of Worship Act
On Monday, the Supreme Court voiced its displeasure over the repeated filing of fresh petitions in an ongoing case concerning the validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. This legislation mandates that the religious character of a place of worship must be preserved as it stood on August 15, 1947.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar also indicated that it might not be able to hear the pending scheduled petitions on the matter that day, as the bench was sitting with only two judges. The case, which had previously been heard by a three-judge bench, required an appropriate composition for further proceedings.
When senior advocate Indira Jaising, representing one of the litigants, mentioned a fresh plea for an urgent hearing, the Chief Justice responded, “We might not be able to take it up.” At the outset of the day’s proceedings, the CJI remarked on the excessive number of interim applications (IAs) being filed about the case. “There is a limit to the number of petitions that can be filed. So many IAs have been submitted… we might not be able to take it up,” he stated, suggesting that a date for a hearing could be scheduled in March.
Supreme Court’s Previous Orders and Pending Petitions
On December 12, 2024, the Supreme Court effectively put a hold on proceedings in approximately 18 lawsuits initiated by various Hindu groups. These lawsuits sought court-sanctioned surveys to determine the original religious nature of 10 mosques, including:
- Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi
- Shahi Idgah Masjid in Mathura
- Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal, where communal clashes had resulted in four deaths
Following this order, the court scheduled all related petitions for a consolidated and effective hearing on February 17.
However, since that ruling, several new petitions have been filed, including ones by prominent political figures such as AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi, Samajwadi Party leader and Kairana MP Iqra Choudhary, and members of the Congress Party. These petitions urge the court to ensure the effective enforcement of the 1991 law, which aims to prevent disputes over places of worship.
On February 14, Choudhary, the Lok Sabha MP from Kairana, Uttar Pradesh, filed a plea calling for legal measures to curb the growing trend of lawsuits targeting mosques and dargahs. He argued that such actions pose a threat to communal harmony and the secular ethos of the country. The Supreme Court had earlier agreed to hear a separate petition by Owaisi raising similar concerns.
Meanwhile, the Akhil Bhartiya Sant Samiti, a Hindu organization, has approached the Supreme Court seeking permission to intervene in the cases that challenge the constitutional validity of the 1991 Act. Previously, the bench had been handling around six petitions, including one led by lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay, which contested several provisions of the law.
The Places of Worship Act, of 1991, prohibits the conversion of any place of worship and mandates that its religious character must remain unchanged as it was on August 15, 1947. However, the law notably excluded the long-disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya from its purview.
Muslim organizations, including Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, have emphasized the need for strict implementation of the Act to maintain communal peace and prevent any changes in the current status of mosques. They argue that attempts to reclaim religious sites based on historical claims violate the law and risk inflaming sectarian tensions.
Conversely, petitioners like Upadhyay have called for Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Act to be struck down. Their argument centers on the claim that these provisions deprive individuals and religious groups of their right to seek judicial remedy for reclaiming places of worship that they believe were wrongfully altered in the past.
The core legal debate before the court revolves around Sections 3 and 4 of the 1991 law:
- Section 3 explicitly bars the conversion of places of worship from one religious denomination to another.
- Section 4 prohibits legal challenges that seek to alter the religious character of such sites and limits the jurisdiction of courts in such matters.
The Gyanvapi Mosque management committee has filed an intervention plea opposing the petitions that challenge the validity of the 1991 Act. The committee highlighted a series of past claims made concerning various mosques and dargahs across the country, including:
- Shahi Idgah Masjid in Mathura
- Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque near Delhi’s Qutub Minar
- Kamal Maula Mosque in Madhya Pradesh
According to the committee, the petitions seeking to challenge the Act have been filed with a “mischievous intent” to enable lawsuits against these protected religious sites. They argue that upholding the 1991 Act is essential to prevent further legal disputes that could disturb communal peace
The Supreme Court has acknowledged that the central issue in the case revolves around the interpretation and applicability of Sections 3 and 4 of the 1991 law. While the bench has indicated that it will eventually hear arguments on the matter, the growing number of fresh petitions and intervention pleas has complicated the proceedings.
With the case being highly sensitive and politically charged, the court’s decision is expected to have far-reaching implications for religious disputes in India. The outcome will likely set a precedent for future legal battles over places of worship and could influence the delicate balance between historical claims and present-day communal harmony.
As the legal process unfolds, all eyes remain on the Supreme Court’s next steps in determining the fate of the Places of Worship Act, 1991, and its impact on religious structures across the country.
