AIMPLB moves SC, seeks to become party to petition against Places of Worship Act

The validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 is pending a challenge in the top court based on a petition filed by BJP leader and lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has approached the Supreme Court to become party to a petition challenging the validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.

The Supreme Court of India. (PTI File Photo)

The validity of the law, which was introduced on July 11, 1991 by the Congress government to maintain the “religious character” of places of worship as it was in 1947 — except in the case of Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute, is pending challenge in the top court following a petition filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay last year.

The top court on March 12 last year had issued a notice to the Centre after Upadhyay alleged that the 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.

“To rake up issues relating to conversion of places of worship is fraught with dire consequences of the breach of public order and disturbance of public tranquility and peace,” AIMPLB’s application, filed through advocate MR Shamshad, said.

Referring to the communal riots that took place in Mumbai after the Babri Masjid demolition three decades ago, the application said: “Our country has witnessed bloodbaths after the controversy erupted in respect of Babri Masjid... Such disputes disturb the social fabric of the society by polarising the people on the ground of religion.”

The application also quoted the Ayodhya title suit judgment decided by the apex court in November 2020, where the five-judge bench ruled that “Places of Worship Act imposes a non-derogable obligation towards enforcing our commitment to secularism under the Indian Constitution.”

The AIMLB denied there was any violation of Articles 25 or 26, or even access of citizens to approach the Supreme Court. The petitioner is “wreaking vengeance” on the present generation of Muslims who played no part in inflicting such alleged insults on Hindus of the distant past, the application said.

Upadhyay’s petition detailed attacks by past Muslim rulers who conquered India and destroyed temples.

“The present petition (by Upadhyay) seems to be mischievous in nature as it has been the stated objective of the BJP as per Vinay Katiyar (BJP leader) who has been quoted to have said – temple building at Kashi and Mathura is very much on our agenda... This has been the stated objective of Sangh Pariwar since 1990 and even Upadhyay’s petition admits this stated position,” the application by the Muslim body said.

It further referred to the recent suit filed by Hindu women seeking right to worship at the Gyanvapi mosque in Lucknow and a similar relief being sought in Mathura with respect to the Shahi Eidgah mosque. It also referred to similar petitions seeking survey of mosques protected under the Places of Worship Act to declare them as Hindu temples.

Linking the present PIL filed by Upadhyay with the aforementioned ‘trend’, the AIMPLB said: “There appears to be a trend of filing the PIL petitions selectively targeting the issues relating to a particular minority community with intention to use the pendency of such cases to fuel hate politics on the ground.”

The application urged the apex court to not allow such “unregulated PILs” meant for publicity stunts and sought Upadhyay’s petition to be dismissed.