On December 12, 2024, the Supreme Court heard a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. A bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice K.V. Viswanathan presided over the matter and passed several significant orders regarding the proceedings.
During the ongoing hearing of petitions challenging the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, the Supreme Court addressed additional procedural matters, including an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
Order VII Rule 11 Application
The application sought dismissal of certain petitions at the threshold on grounds of lack of maintainability. Order VII Rule 11 CPC empowers the court to reject a plaint if it fails to disclose a cause of action, is barred by law, or is otherwise defective in form or substance. While no decision was made on this application during the hearing, the bench acknowledged the procedural objections raised by the respondents.
Key Directives
Bar on New Suits and Interim Orders
The Court reiterated that no new suits related to the Act can be filed or registered, and no effective interim or final orders can be passed in pending suits until further notice.
Union of India’s Reply
The Union Government was directed to file its counter-affidavit within four weeks, allowing petitioners a rejoinder period thereafter.
Maintaining Judicial Discipline
The bench clarified that other courts cannot pass orders regarding the validity of the Act while the matter is sub judice before the Supreme Court.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Union of India, while advocates for petitioners and intervenors included J. Sai Deepak, Ejaz Maqbool, and Vishnu Shankar Jain.
Intervenors and Petitioners
Prominent intervenors include political parties like CPI (M), Indian Union Muslim League, and MPs Manoj Kumar Jha (RJD) and Thol Thirumavalavan. They argue that the Act aligns with the Constitution’s Preamble and Articles 14, 15, 25, 26, and 51A, emphasizing communal harmony and secularism.
On the other hand, petitioners, including Ashwini Upadhyay and others contend that the Act violates fundamental rights by retrospectively freezing the status of places of worship. They argue that this hinders judicial remedies for reclaiming religious sites taken during historical invasions.
The 1991 Act was enacted to prevent the alteration of the religious character of places of worship and maintain communal harmony. The case holds significant political and social implications, with debates surrounding historical injustices.
Core Legal Questions
Validity of Sections 3 and 4 of the 1991 Act, which prohibit altering the religious character of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947, and bar legal proceedings to change their status.
The outcome of this case could be pivotal in determining whether the historical wrongs committed during invasions can be addressed through judicial remedies. Many argue that the destruction and conversion of sacred Hindu sites during historical invasions must not be justified or ignored under the guise of preserving communal harmony. The imposition of the 1991 Act, in this view, is seen as a continuation of a historical injustice, preventing Hindus from reclaiming their religious heritage. Advocates from this side suggest that the law effectively shields invaders’ actions, which have had a long-lasting detrimental impact on the religious and cultural identity of Hindus. Therefore, the decision may have far-reaching consequences, potentially altering the course of how the courts address the protection and restoration of Hindu religious sites.
