Solicitor General Tushar Mehta today, on October 12, 2022, told the highest court of India that its’ 2019 verdict in the most controversial Ayodhya case might not comply with the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The response by Mehta to the Supreme Court transpires after a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI), UU Lalit, Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Ajay Rastogi put forward a question regarding the matter during the hearing.
The constitutional validity of the provisions of the act has been challenged related to which bunch of petitions were listed by the Supreme Court bench today while directing the Centre to file the responses by the last day of the ongoing month. CJI Lalit noted Union’s reply is pertinent as the petition questions the validity of legislation.
The Chief Justice of India seeking a personal view of Solicitor General Mehta, who is representing the Centre, asked him, “Mr SG What is your view? Was the legislation covered in the Ayodhya judgement?”. “It may not be covered”, replies Solicitor General Mehta.
Understand Places of Worship Act, 1991
The Act maintains and safeguards the religious character of places of worship in India. It further bars the conversion of any place of worship as well as provides maintenance to all the religious structures across the country which existed till India’s Independence.
A total of ten questions have been put up in the petitions which are to be answered by the Centre (Case title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India & ORS.W.P. ( C) No. 1246/2020 and linked matters). The raised queries as mentioned by Live Law. are –
- Is the Parliament legislatively capable of enacting the Act as the Act pacts with the subject matters which are mentioned in the State List (List 2) of Schedule 7 of the Indian constitution all of which resides in the exclusive domain of the State Legislatures?
- Is the prohibition conversion of the places of worship enforced by Section 3 read with the Section 2 (b) violates Articles – 14, 21, 25, 26 and 19 (1) of the constitution in as much as it assumes, contrary to settled law relating to the dedication of the temple and temple property to the Idol, which never dies, that seeking reclamation or restoration of the temples that have been demolished by the Muslim invaders, especially Aurangzeb, would amount to seek the conversion of the place of worship & thereby putting an imprimatur on the destruction of the Hindu temples as well as of the building if the establishment on the temple land for offering prayers by the other community? If this would lead to depriving the temples and the Idols of their property without any public purpose would it violate Article 300 A of the Indian constitution?
- Does the Act violate Article 14 in as much as it discriminates in a hostile way by putting a restriction on the operation of the Act to all the Indian States except Jammu and Kashmir?
- Does the second part of Section 4(2) violate Articles 14, 21, 25, 26, and 29 (2) in as much as it denies access to the court of justice for peacefully resolving disputes and redressal of the wrongs which have been committed by the Muslim invaders on religious grounds by utilising force?
- Whether the cut-off date is 15/08/1947 fixed by Section 4(1) of the Act is discriminatory and manifestly arbitrary and violates the Articles 14, 21, 25, 26, 29 (1) of the constitution as for appx 4 centuries before the aforementioned date, the citizens of the country were not free and subjects of initially the Mughal invaders and thereafter of the British imperialists & were not in a position to seek retrieval and reconstruction?
- Does Section 4(2) of the Act violate Articles 14, 21, 26, 26, 29 (2) of the Indian constitution in as much as it mandates the abatement of pending disputes in consideration of the place of worship in the courts and thereby legislatively perpetuates the demolition of key temples and of the building of structures on the temple land by use of the temple materials by the Muslim invaders by using force that resulted in adverse impacts of the fundamental rights of the Hindus to religion and worship?
- Whether the second part of Section 4 (2) would envelop proceedings under Articles 226 and 32, which is a fundamental right under the Indian constitution?
- Does the proviso to Section 4 (2) that permits suits, appeals, and legal proceedings to continue where conversion has taken place in the religious character of the place of worship after the day of India’s Independence despite its potential to disturb public order and breach communal harmony while shutting out litigations related to the conversions that took place in the past as a result of invaders atrocities leading to hostile discrimination as between two classes of litigation & this has no relation to the public order and communal harmony? Whether Section 5 of the Act, makes invidious discriminations by treating Ram Janam Bhumi dispute as a ‘Class by itself’ while excluding from the exemption prime temples such as – Kashi Vishwanath and Krishna Janm Sthan that are equally, if not more, significant temples whose demolition by invaders is more soundly evidenced and recorded in the history?
- If the abatement of the pending suits & the other legal proceedings would result in a decision of cases by legislative fiat and without following any procedure of adjudication and would be contrary to the basic features of the Rule of Law and Judicial Review? Whether the right to worship, profess, practice and propagate religion and manage religious affairs guaranteed by Articles 25 (1) and 26 of the Indian constitution as well as the right to conserve one’s own culture reserved by Article 25 (1) would include the right to reclaim and reconstruct temples destroyed by Muslim invaders.
- Would suits seeking restoration and reconstruction of or for worship in the temples destroyed and demolished by the Mughal invaders amount to ‘conversion’ within the meaning of the term which has been defined in the Act?
