SC Restrains Lower Courts from Entertaining Fresh Mandir-Masjid Cases, Protects 1991 Places of Worship Act

1991 Places of Worship Act: In a major judgment, the Supreme Court of India has restrained courts across the nation from admitting new pleas or suits seeking surveys of mosques to verify whether temples exist beneath them. It has also restrained courts from passing effective interim or final orders in pending disputes related to such matters till further order.

The interim order was issued by a special bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice KV Viswanathan on Thursday. The bench is hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the 1991 Places of Worship Act. This legislation mandates maintaining the religious character of places of worship as they were on August 15, 1947, barring the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site.

1991 Places of Worship Act: Banning Order to Fresh and Pending Cases

The supreme court unequivocally declared, “No order for a survey or any other effective order shall be passed in existing suits. In pending lawsuits, courts shall not pass any effective interim or final orders until further notice.” This judgment affects the high-profile cases related to the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, Mathura’s Shahi Idgah, and Sambhal Jama Masjid, among others.

This is after a series of petitions, among them the lead case Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, filed in 2020, challenging the constitutional validity of the 1991 Act. The Court issued a notice to the Union Government in March 2021, but the government has yet to file its counter-affidavit despite multiple extensions.

Interventions and Controversy

The 1991 Act has been supported by different political and religious organizations. For instance, Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind filed a writ petition to enforce the Act, while several political entities, including CPI(M), Indian Union Muslim League, DMK, RJD MP Manoj Kumar Jha, and NCP MP Jitendra Awhad, have submitted intervention applications supporting the provisions of the Act.

The law has recently seen widespread controversies, including violence following a survey of the Sambhal Jama Masjid in Uttar Pradesh. The nodal counsels as nominated by the Advocates -Kanu Agarwal, Vishnu Shankar Jain, and Ejaz Maqbool will advance arguments on behalf of the petitioners, Union Government, as well as supporters of the enactment respectively.

Status Quo Maintenance

The Supreme Court’s ruling underscores the importance of maintaining the status quo regarding the religious character of places of worship. It also reflects the Court’s intent to prevent communal tensions while the broader constitutional challenge to the 1991 Act is addressed.

The landmark directive reminds the judiciary of the role it must play in upholding the secular nature of the country, notwithstanding the complexities and sensitivities surrounding such historical disputes.