Can’t order blanket stay on worship act pleas: Supreme Court
The 1991 law locks the religious identity of a place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947, and makes it punishable to attempt to change its character.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that it cannot order a blanket stay restraining other courts from hearing cases related to disputed religious sites even as there is no judicial order putting on hold the operation of the Places of Worship Act, 1991.
Read here: Collegium system is vibrant, committed to its task: CJI Chandrachud
The 1991 law locks the religious identity of a place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947, and makes it punishable to attempt to change its character.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and justice PS Narasimha pointed out that it would not be proper for the apex court to issue a generic directive without knowing the facts of the cases pending before various courts across the country.
The court was hearing a bundle of petitions -- some challenged the validity of the 1991 Act while some others demanded stringent enforcement of the same law.
“There is no stay on the Act. You have to point out before the court concerned that there is no stay. Mere pendency of the plea (before the Supreme Court challenging the Act) is not a stay (on the Act). We cannot in general stay the proceedings before other courts without knowing what they are,” the bench told advocate Vrinda Grover.
The top court’s remarks come at a time when a spate of suits and other proceedings have been initiated by at various places in the country, including Varanasi and Mathura, to reclaim Hindu places of worship.
Grover, on her part, was seeking a clarification from the bench that the Supreme Court has not stayed the 1991 Act, and thus, the proceedings pending before the courts relating to determination of religious character or changing the character of a place of worship ought to be stopped.
“There is an interim application seeking a stay. Across the country matters are being litigated while the Act is in place. As of today, the Act applies. Please clarify that there is no stay on the Act,” she submitted.
Read here: Bilkis case: SC to hear petitions against remission to 11 convicts
The bench, however, responded that there is no judicial order staying the operation of the Act, and hence, the issue of a clarification may not arise at all.
At this, Grover said that she has also moved an application, seeking enforcement of the 1991 Act in letter and spirit. The bench issued a notice on this plea, asking the Union government to respond.
The top court further gave the Centre time till October 31 to bring on record its stand on the issue. The government needs to come clean whether it stands by the 1991 Act or if a review of the Act is being mulled over, it said.
If the Centre opts to defend the law as it is, it will have to justify the rationale behind the cut-off date and stopping reclamation of religious places allegedly destroyed by Muslim invaders, among others, as raised by the petitioners. The Union government was issued a notice by the top court over two years ago, but it is yet to convey its stand on the issue.
The court had in March 2021 issued a notice on a petition filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, contending that the 1991 law violated Article 25 (right to practice and propagate religion) and Article 26 (right to manage religious affairs) of the Constitution, besides being discriminatory by barring religious communities from approaching courts to restore their places of worship. He even questioned the Centre’s power to enact such legislation.
Subsequently, several other petitions and applications were filed on the issue. Muslim bodies such as Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind and All India Muslim Personal Law Board brought up the declaration in the Ayodhya verdict that the Act is “a legislative intervention which preserves non-retrogression as an essential feature of our secular values”.
Jamiat’s petition sought enforcement of the 1991 law, complaining, “Muslim places of worship are being made the subject matter of frivolous controversies and suits, which are patently barred under the 1991 Act.”
Read here: SC clears decks for 12 MLCs’ appointment
Upadhyay and Vishwa Bhadra Pujari Purohit Mahasangh, on the other hand, have argued that the top court was not dealing with the 1991 Act in the Ayodhya land dispute and what was said was just obiter dicta (observations made in passing), having no force in law.