Supreme Court defers hearing of Places of Worship Act pleas to April

The Supreme Court on Monday, 17 February deferred the hearing of the petitions regarding the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, until April. The bench is considering two sets of petitions: one challenging the constitutionality of the Places of Worship Act, and the other calling for its strict enforcement. The law aims to provide for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on 15 August 1947, the day India officially gained Independence from British rule. 

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar directed that the matter be scheduled for hearing in the week beginning 1 April. Previously, the case was heard by a three-judge bench including CJI Khanna, Justice Kumar, and Justice K.V. Viswanathan. 

As the CJIs court was sitting with a two-judge bench on Monday, the case was adjourned. During the morning session, when counsel asked whether new interventions could be permitted, the CJI responded, “There is a limit to which it can be filed; there are many petitions coming. We will see.” 

On Monday, the Centre remained silent, not filing a counter-affidavit addressing the challenge to the validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, despite the numerous legal questions raised by petitioners and intervenors. 

The case has been pending for over four years, with eight orders from the apex court between October 2022 and December 2024, recording the Court either granting the government extensions to file an affidavit or the government’s assurances that a “comprehensive” affidavit was being prepared. 

On Monday, the bench expressed concern over the volume of petitions being filed in the case and dismissed writ petitions in which no notice had been issued, granting petitioners the liberty to file applications. The CJI noted that the Court would entertain applications that raised new legal grounds. 

A number of prominent lawyers appeared for the various parties and intervenors, including senior advocates Kapil Sibal, A.M. Singhvi, Dushyant Dave, P. Wilson, Raju Ramachandran, Vikas Singh, advocates Kaleeswaram Raj, Ejaz Maqbool, and Nizam Pasha. The Centre was represented by solicitor-general Tushar Mehta and advocate Kanu Agrawal. 

Raj stated that interventions were expected in a case involving such a significant constitutional question. Singh, appearing for petitioner Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, reminded the Court that it had issued notice on the initial petitions as early as 2021. “Please direct the Centre to file its counter-affidavit, at least in these petitions,” he requested. 

Earlier, senior advocate Indira Jaising, representing one of the petitioners, orally mentioned the case before the two-judge bench of CJI Khanna and Justice Kumar. However, Justice Viswanathan, the third judge, was unavailable as he was presiding over another bench. The CJI had indicated in the morning that the matter might not be heard that day.  Jaising reminded the Court that the legal issues to be addressed in the case had not yet been framed. 

Parties supporting the 1991 Act argued that it serves as a safeguard against the increasing number of lawsuits that ultimately aim to stoke communal tensions.

They highlighted that various local courts, by ordering surveys of mosque premises in civil suits, were violating sections 3 and 4 of the Act, which prohibit the conversion of places of worship and mandate the preservation of their religious character as it stood on 15 August 1947.

The bench also noted the many intervention applications and similar writ petitions, either challenging the Act or seeking its implementation. Consequently, it directed that any pending writ petitions, where no notice had been issued, would be dismissed. However, petitioners were granted permission to file applications raising additional grounds in the ongoing matter. 

The Union government is yet to submit its counter-affidavit, despite multiple extensions granted by the Supreme Court, which had originally instructed the Union to file the counter by 31 October 2023. 

In a notable order on 12 December 2023, a bench comprising CJI Khanna and Justices Kumar and Viswanathan halted new lawsuits and survey orders against religious places.

The Court also instructed that, in ongoing cases such as those concerning the Gyanvapi Mosque, Mathura Shahi Idgah, and Sambhal Jama Masjid, courts should not issue interim or final orders, including survey orders. This interim order was made while hearing petitions challenging the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, and requests for its enforcement. 

What is the challenge about? Key developments 

The lead petition (Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India) was filed in 2020, and the Court issued a notice to the Union government in March 2021.

Subsequently, several similar petitions were filed, challenging the statute that seeks to preserve the status quo of religious structures as they existed on 15 August 1947, and prohibits legal actions that seek their conversion.

In 2022, the Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, an Islamic clerics' body, filed a petition demanding the strict enforcement of the Act. Other intervenors include the Gyanvapi Mosque Managing Committee, Maharashtra MLA Jitendra Satish Awhad (NCP, SP), the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (represented by politburo member Prakash Karat), the Mathura Shahi Idgah Masjid Committee, and RJD MP Manoj Jha. Additionally, Samajwadi Party MP Iqra Choudhary has filed a writ petition calling for a stricter enforcement of the Act. 

It also clarifies that places considered ancient monuments or archaeological sites, covered by the 1958 Act, are not protected by this rule. The Union Government has not yet submitted its response, despite several extensions from the Court. The Court had asked the Union to file its response by 31 October 2023. 

On 12 December 2023, a bench led by CJI Sanjiv Khanna made an important ruling, stopping new lawsuits and survey orders against religious places. 

It also directed that no interim or final orders, including surveys, be issued in ongoing cases involving sites like the Gyanvapi Mosque, Mathura Shahi Idgah, and Sambhal Jama Masjid. This order was passed while the Court was hearing petitions both challenging the Act and seeking its enforcement.