New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday (December 12) ordered that no further suits can be registered in the country against places of worship till further orders from the Supreme Court.
The Court also ordered that in pending suits (such as those concerning Gyanvapi mosque, Mathura Shahi Idgah, Sambhal Jama Masjid etc.), the Courts should not pass effective interim or final orders, including orders for survey. The interim order was passed while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.
The crucial intervention of the Court came amidst rising concerns about the filing of multiple suits in the country claiming ownership of medieval mosques and dargahs. A survey order passed by a trial court against a 16th-century mosque in Sambhal (UP) had triggered violence in November, killing at least four persons.
A special bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Viswanathan passed the following order.
“As the matter is sub-judice before this Court, we deem it appropriate to direct that while suits may be filed, no suits would be registered and proceedings undertaken till further orders of this Court. We also direct that in the pending suits, the Courts would not pass any effective interim orders or final orders, including orders of survey till the next date of hearing.”
However, the Court refused to stay the proceedings in the suits which are presently pending against places of worship like mosques/dargahs. The Court also asked the Union Government to file its counter-affidavit in the petitions which question the Places of Worship Act within four weeks from today. The copy of the Centre’s counter-affidavit has been directed to be uploaded on a website from which any person can download it.
The bench was informed that at present 18 suits are pending in the country against 10 mosques/shrines. During the hearing, Justice Viswanathan told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, “Mr SG, plea challenges the constitutionality of the Act…there is a larger question…one of the arguments you have to meet…S.3 one view is it is only an effective reiteration of already embedded constitutional principles…Civil courts can’t run a race with the Supreme Court. That is why there has to be a stay. You have a judgment of 5 judges…”
The Court was hearing a batch of petitions questioning the constitutional validity of the 1991 Act which prohibits the conversion of religious character of places of worship from their status as of August 15, 1947.
The lead petition (Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India) was filed in 2020, in which the Court issued notice to the Union Government in March 2021. Later, few other similar petitions were filed challenging the statute.
A writ petition filed by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind seeking the implementation of the Act was also listed today. Several intervention applications have been filed by various political parties like CPI(M), Indian Union Muslim League, DMK and RJD MP Manoj Kumar Jha, NCP (Sharad Pawar) MLA Jitendra Awhad etc, seeking the protection of the Act.
The Union Government is yet to file its counter-affidavit in the matter, despite several extensions given by the Court. The Act became a focal point of public discussion recently in view of the violent events which followed the survey of the Sambhal Jama Masjid in Uttar Pradesh.
The Court appointed Advocates Kanu Agarwal, Vishnu Shankar Jain and Ejaz Maqbool as nodal counsel to make compilations on behalf of the Union, the petitioners and the parties supporting the Act respectively.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UoI And Ors. WP(C) No. 1246/2020 and connected matters
