Page 6 - The Indian EYE 122024

NATION DECEMBER 20, 2024 | The Indian Eye 6

PLACES OF WORSHIP ACT

Will religious sites rows stop as SC

restrains courts from passing final or survey

orders in pending suits?

The 1991 provision is an Act to prohibit conversion of any place of worship and to provide for the

maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947

OUR BUREAU
New Delhi
he Supreme Court on Thursday restrained
all courts across the country from passing
Tany effective interim or final order including
orders of survey in pending suits against existing
religious structures.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khan-
na and Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswa-
nathan also ordered that no fresh suits can be reg-
istered over such claims while the court is hearing
pleas challenging the Places of Worship (Special
Provisions) Act, 1991.
“As the matter is sub-judice before this court,
we deem it fit to direct that while suits may be
filed, no suits would be registered and proceedings
undertaken till further orders of this court. In the
pending suits, courts would not pass any effective
interim order or final orders, including orders of
survey,” the bench ordered.
The apex court was informed that at pres- An aerial view of the Shahi Jama Masjid, in Sambhal which has bene in the eye of a controversy since a court ordered
ent 18 suits are pending in the country against 10 a survey of the site (ANI)
mosques or shrines. The bench also granted four
weeks to Centre to file an affidavit in a batch of pe-
titions challenging certain provisions of the Plac- Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, India Muslim Person- nal or board.
es of Worship (Special Provision) Act, 1991, that al Law Board, Committee of Management Anju- “The law states that the religious character of
prohibit the filing of a lawsuit to reclaim a place man Intezamia Masjid which manages the mosque a place cannot be altered. We agree with this prin-
of worship or seek a change in its character from in the Gyanvapi complex, Shahi Idgah mosque ciple, but historical facts show that the Mughals
what prevailed on August 15, 1947. committee of Mathura, among others, also filed modified the religious character of certain places.
The pleas challenged the Places of Worship applications in the top court against the petitions Our demand is for the restoration of their original
Act saying that the Act takes away the rights of challenging the validity of certain provisions of the character. Right now, I am in the Supreme Court
Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs to restore their 1991 law. dressed in black robes, resembling a lawyer. If I
‘places of worship and pilgrimages’, destroyed by They challenged the petitions filed by some wear a tilak, I may appear Hindu; if I wear a cap, I
invaders. Hindu petitioners saying that entertaining the may appear Muslim. My outward appearance can
Daughter of the Kashi Royal Family, Mahara- pleas against the Act will open floodgates of litiga- change, but determining my true character would
ja Kumari Krishna Priya; BJP leader Subramanian tions against countless mosques across India. require an investigation,” he said.
Swamy; Chintamani Malviya, former Member of “The Places of Worship Act 1991 is void and “Similarly, whether a structure is a temple or a
Parliament; Anil Kabotra, a retired army officer; unconstitutional for many reasons,” the plea said, mosque cannot be judged by its outward appear-
advocates Chandra Shekhar; Rudra Vikram Singh, adding that it offends the right of Hindus, Jains, ance alone. A survey is crucial to establish this. No
resident of Varanasi; Swami Jeetendranand Saras- Buddhists, and Sikhs to pray, profess, practice and law should obstruct access to the courts. The Plac-
wati, a religious leader; Devkinandan Thakur Ji, prorogate religion (Article 25), the petitions said. es of Worship Act bars such access without pro-
resident of Mathura and a religious guru and ad- Ashwini Upadhyay, a key petitioner challeng- viding any alternative tribunal or board, making it
vocate Ashwini Upadhyay among others have filed ing the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, unconstitutional,” he added.
the pleas in the apex court against the 1991 Act. 1991, on Thursday described the law as “unconsti- The petitioner further emphasized that the is-
The 1991 provision is an Act to prohibit conver- tutional,” arguing that it blocks access to the courts sue transcends religious identities and concerns the
sion of any place of worship and to provide for the and provides no alternative legal mechanism. sovereignty of India. “The opposing side argued
maintenance of the religious character of any place Speaking to ANI, Upadhyay pointed out that for halting surveys at 18 sites across the country,
of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947, and for while the Waqf Act also limits access to courts, it but we opposed this since those supporting these
matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. offers alternative forums such as the Waqf Tribu- sites have not even approached the court,” he said.

www.TheIndianEYE.com