New Delhi, Apr 1 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a writ petition challenging the validity of Section 4(2) of the Places of Worship Act, 1991.
This provision mandates that any legal proceedings regarding the religious character of a place of worship, initiated before August 15, 1947, shall abate upon the commencement of the Act.
However, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an application in the pending challenge to the Act under Ashwani Kuar Upadhyay v. Union of India.
The Court is already considering multiple petitions regarding the validity of the Places of Worship Act.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar, and Justice K.V. Viswanathan previously passed a crucial order on December 12, 2024, halting fresh suits and survey orders against religious sites.
At the outset of today's hearing, the bench, led by CJI Khanna, noted that the present plea bore no substantive difference from the pending challenge.
Justice Khanna remarked, "This is the same plea, what is the difference?"
Despite the petitioner's counsel arguing that there was a nuanced distinction in the matter and requesting it be tagged with the pending case, the Court refused to intervene.
The bench ordered, "We are not inclined to interfere in the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution." However, the petitioner was allowed to apply to the ongoing challenge.
While addressing the pending petitions on December 12, 2024, the Court directed that no effective interim or final orders, including survey orders, be passed in ongoing cases concerning places like the Gyanvapi Mosque, Mathura Shahi Idgah, and Sambhal Jama Masji.
The present petition challenged Section 4(2) because it allegedly infringes upon Articles 25, 26, and 29 of the Constitution by restricting the right to reclaim deity properties misappropriated by other communities.
The petition contends that temple property is perpetual and cannot be lost to adverse possession, even by the state. The plea also argues that Section 4(2) unlawfully prevents courts from adjudicating historical religious disputes, thus violating the separation of powers.
The petitioner further asserted that the Act does not define structural modifications as altering religious character and that such changes should be permissible to restore the original nature of worship sites.
The petitioner requested the Court to declare Section 4(2) unconstitutional for violating Articles 14, 21, 25, and 26. and to clarify that the Act only prohibits the conversion of religious character, not structural changes.
The petitioner sought that the competent courts be permitted to determine the original religious character of places of worship.
UNI SNG CS