DH NEWS SERVICE
NEW DELHI, Feb 17
Expressing displeasure over filing of several pleas on the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, the Supreme Court on Monday said a three-judge bench will hear in April the pending post-notice petitions related to the 1991 law which mandates the religious character of a place to be maintained as it existed on August 15, 1947.
The top court, however, granted liberty to the petitioners like Samajwadi Party leader and Kairana MP Iqra Choudhary, who have filed the pleas recently and notices have not been issued on them, to file applications for intervention in pending ones by citing new legal grounds.
Dismissing fresh petitions, on which notices were not issued yet, a bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar said, “The writ petitioners can file an (intervention) application raising new grounds.”
“We are constrained to pass this order after taking note of the number of fresh petitions filed. The pending writ petitions, which have no notices, stand dismissed with liberty to file an application raising additional grounds, if any. The new IA will only be allowed if there is any new point or new legal issue that has not been raised in the pending petitions,” the bench said.
It then listed the batch of petitions and cross ones pertaining to the 1991 law in the week commencing April 1 before a three-judge bench.
At the outset, the CJI said, “People keep on filing fresh petitions alleging that they have raised new grounds…It will become impossible for us to deal with the petitions besides whatever has already been filed.”
Senior advocate Dushyant Dave agreed to the bench and said no fresh plea be allowed on the issue.
Another senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for one of the old petitioners, raised the issue of non-filing of the response by the Centre to the petitions and said the last opportunity be given to the government for this purpose.
Earlier in the day also, the CJI expressed displeasure over filing of many fresh cases.
The bench also indicated that it may not take up the pending scheduled petitions, heard earlier by a three-judge bench, during the day as it was sitting in a combination of two judges.
“We might not be able to take it up”, the CJI said when senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for a litigant, mentioned a fresh plea for hearing during the day.
At the outset of the day’s proceedings, the senior advocate mentioned the matter.
“There is a limit to which petitions can be filed. So many IAs (interim applications) have been filed… we might not be able to take it up”, the CJI said, adding that a date may be given in March.
The top court, through its December 12, 2024 order, effectively stalled proceedings in about 18 lawsuits filed by various Hindu parties seeking survey to ascertain original religious character of 10 mosques, including Gyanvapi at Varanasi, Shahi Idgah Masjid at Mathura and Shahi Jama Masjid at Sambhal where four people died in clashes.
It had then listed all the petitions for an effective hearing on February 17.
Post December 12, several petitions have been filed, including by AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi, Samajwadi Party leader and Kairana MP Iqra Choudhary and the Congress Party, seeking effective implementation of the 1991 law.
The Akhil Bhartiya Sant Samiti, a Hindu outfit, had moved the top court seeking to intervene in cases filed against the validity of provisions of the 1991 law. Earlier, the bench was hearing about six petitions, including the lead one filed by lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay, challenging various provisions of the 1991 law.
The law prohibits conversion of any place of worship and provides for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947.
However, the dispute relating to Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid at Ayodhya was kept out of its purview.
Muslim bodies like Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind seek strict implementation of the 1991 law to maintain communal harmony and to preserve the present status of mosques, sought to be reclaimed by Hindus on grounds that they were temples before invaders razed them.
On the other hand, petitioners like Updhyay have sought setting aside of Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Act.
Among the reasons was also the contention that these provisions took away the right of judicial remedy to reclaim a place of worship of any person or a religious group.
“Ultimately, we will have to hear the arguments,” the bench had said, observing the primary issue was with regard to Section 3 and 4 of the 1991 law.
While Section 3 deals with the bar of conversion of places of worship, Section 4 pertains to declarations as to the religious character of certain places of worship and bar of jurisdiction of courts, etc.
The Gyanvapi Mosque management committee, in its intervention plea, opposed several pending petitions that challenge the constitutional validity of the 1991 law.
The mosque committee listed a series of contentious claims made over the years concerning various mosques and dargahs (shrines), including the Shahi Idgah Masjid in Mathura, the Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque near Delhi’s Qutub Minar, the Kamal Maula Mosque in Madhya Pradesh, and others.
It, therefore, said the petitions challenging the Act were filed with “mischievous intent” to facilitate lawsuits against these religious sites, which the 1991 Act currently protected.
