Gyanvapi mosque committee opposes pleas against 1991 Places of Worship law, moves SC

‘Consequences of striking down Places of Worship Act bound to be drastic‘: Gyanvapi Mosque Committee to SC

The Gyanvapi Mosque management committee has moved the Supreme Court to oppose several pending petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. This law prohibits the conversion of any place of worship and mandates the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947. The only exception made in the Act pertains to the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute in Ayodhya.

The Supreme Court is already addressing approximately six petitions, including Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay, against certain provisions of the Act. The mosque management, Anjuman Intezamia Masajid of Varanasi, filed an intervention application through its lawyer, Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, seeking the dismissal of these pending petitions. The committee argued that the pleas were based on “rhetorical and communal claims” that could disrupt communal harmony and the rule of law.

“Without lending much credence to the rhetorical claims made in the petition, the purported grievances concerning ancient rulers of the past cannot be addressed by this Hon’ble Court and do not provide valid grounds for challenging the constitutional validity of the 1991 Act,” the plea stated.

The committee emphasized that petitions challenging a legislative enactment must demonstrate the unconstitutionality of the provisions based on constitutional principles. “Rhetorical arguments seeking retribution for perceived acts of previous rulers cannot form the basis of a constitutional challenge,” it added.

The petition described the 1991 Act as a “legislative instrument designed to protect the secular features of the Indian polity and enforce constitutional commitments.” The committee also highlighted the “drastic consequences” of overturning the Act, citing incidents like the Sambhal case, where a recent survey order reportedly triggered widespread protests and resulted in six fatalities. It warned that repealing the Act could lead to a surge in disputes over religious sites nationwide, threatening communal harmony.

The plea outlined a series of contentious claims concerning various mosques and shrines, including the Shahi Idgah Masjid in Mathura, the Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque near Delhi’s Qutub Minar, and the Kamal Maula Mosque in Madhya Pradesh. It argued that the petitions challenging the Act were filed with “mischievous intent” to enable lawsuits against these protected religious sites.

The committee contended that grievances related to the alleged actions of ancient rulers cannot serve as legitimate grounds for questioning the constitutional validity of the law. It asserted that historical wrongs or perceived injustices should not undermine the principles of secularism and non-retrogression enshrined in the Act.

The 1991 Act was reaffirmed by a five-judge bench in the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi verdict, emphasizing its importance as a cornerstone of India’s secular framework. The Supreme Court, on January 9, 2023, sought responses from the Centre on pending pleas challenging provisions of the Act that prohibit filing lawsuits to reclaim a place of worship or alter its character from what existed on August 15, 1947.

Upadhyay, in his PIL, sought to set aside sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, on the grounds that these provisions eliminated the right of judicial remedy to reclaim a place of worship. The top court also indicated that the pleas challenging the validity of the law might be referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench for adjudication.

While Swamy sought to have the apex court “read down” certain provisions to enable Hindus to stake claims over the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah Mosque in Mathura, Upadhyay argued that the entire statute was unconstitutional, leaving no scope for reading it down. The doctrine of reading down a law is typically employed to preserve a statute from being struck down due to unconstitutionality.

The petitioners alleged that the 1991 Act arbitrarily imposed a retrospective cut-off date of August 15, 1947, to preserve the character of places of worship against encroachments allegedly carried out by “fundamentalist-barbaric invaders and law-breakers.”

For all the latest updates, download PGurus App.

The post Gyanvapi mosque committee opposes pleas against 1991 Places of Worship law, moves SC appeared first on PGurus.