SC restrains courts from admitting new suits, passing orders on Places of Worship pleas

The bench said trial courts could not “overreach” the SC while it adjudicates on challenges to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday issued a nationwide directive restraining all courts from entertaining fresh suits or passing orders to survey mosques to determine whether temple structures lie beneath them. This interim order serves as a sweeping pause on the growing litigation initiated by Hindu groups seeking to reclaim places of worship, effectively stalling proceedings in trial and high courts, and marking a significant intervention by the judiciary in a matter fraught with religious sensitivities and legal complexities.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna formed the three-judge special bench on December 7, paving the way for Thursday’s intervention. (PTI)

The directive came from a special bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, which clarified that trial courts cannot “overreach” the Supreme Court while it adjudicates on challenges to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.

“As the matter is subjudice before this court, we deem it fit to direct that no fresh suits shall be registered, or proceedings be ordered. In the pending suits, courts would not pass any effective or final orders, including the orders of survey, till this court decides the matter,” ordered the bench, which also included justices PV Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan.

The directive comes amid a surge in litigation initiated by Hindu groups seeking the reclamation of alleged historical temple sites, prompting a host of legal proceedings in district and high courts. These disputes have sparked significant controversy and conflicting orders, amplifying political and communal tensions across the country. Despite the significance of the issue, the matter had seen little progress in the Supreme Court over the last two years.

Justice Khanna, who took over as CJI from justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud on November 11, formed the three-judge bench on December 7, paving the way for Thursday’s intervention.

The Places of Worship Act, enacted in 1991, is central to this issue. The Act, which the court is deliberating on at the instance of the two sides – one challenging it and another seeking its strict enforcement -- was enacted to preserve the religious character of all places of worship as they stood on August 15, 1947. The law expressly prohibits altering the religious nature of sites and includes stringent penalties for violations, though it exempted the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya due to ongoing litigation at the time.

In its order on Thursday, the Supreme Court also pointed to its 2019 Ayodhya verdict, in which a five-judge bench underscored the Act’s importance in protecting the secular fabric of the country. The judgment had stressed that the legislation embodies the principles of equality and non-retrogression, which disallow revisiting settled issues.

“When you have a judgment by a Constitution bench laying down certain principles, civil courts cannot run a race with the Supreme Court,” observed the bench on Thursday, adding that no other court in the country should pass orders on such disputes until the top court decides the matter.

The restraining order was issued amid a sharp contest between lawyers representing Hindu and Muslim parties. Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Raju Ramachandran, appearing for Muslim organisations, strongly advocated for halting proceedings, especially surveys, in subordinate courts to avoid conflicting decisions.

Senior advocates Rakesh Dwivedi, Maninder Singh and Vikas Singh, representing Hindu groups, opposed the order, arguing that such a restraint should not be issued without a full hearing. Solicitor general (SG) Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, also contended that external parties should not be allowed to interfere in ongoing suits.

However, the bench was categorical, noting that the issues under consideration went beyond challenges to the 1991 Act and extended to its applicability and enforcement. “It would not be just and fair for any other court to pass orders while these questions remain pending before us,” said the bench.

During the proceedings, the bench also remarked that those assailing the validity of the Act will have to present an effective counter to Section 3 of the Act. This provision imposes a prohibition on individuals and groups of people against converting, in full or part, of a place of worship of any religious denomination into a place of worship of a different religious denomination -- or even a different segment of the same religious denomination.

The court granted the Union government four weeks to clarify its stance on the Act, which has been awaited for over two years despite mounting petitions. Although the Supreme Court admitted petitions challenging the Act in March 2021, the Centre has refrained from filing a definitive response.

This delay came amid mounting challenges to the Act, primarily from Hindu petitioners who claim that it infringes on their fundamental rights to reclaim and restore religious sites allegedly destroyed during historical invasions.

Petitioners include BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, who argues that the Act impedes his right to pray at temples forcibly converted during foreign invasions, and advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, who contends that the legislation discriminates against Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs. Upadhyay asserts that the law violates these communities’ fundamental rights to preserve and manage their places of worship.

Another notable challenge came from Kumari Krishna Priya, a member of the Kashi royal family, who argues that the Act is discriminatory because it exempted the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi site while denying similar exemptions to other significant places such as the Kashi Vishwanath temple in Varanasi and the Krishna Janmabhoomi in Mathura.

Recent years have seen an upsurge in legal suits seeking surveys of prominent mosques, including the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah Mosque in Mathura, to ascertain whether they were built atop demolished temple structures. These cases have proliferated in lower courts, leading to a patchwork of judicial orders that have further polarised opinions.

While the Supreme Court initially refrained from issuing a blanket stay on such cases, Thursday’s directive underscores the urgency of stemming the escalating disputes until the apex court delivers a definitive ruling.

The Places of Worship Act, enacted by the Congress-led government in 1991, aimed to freeze the status of all religious sites as of August 15, 1947, except for the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site. For decades, the law remained uncontested, facing no significant legal challenge.

However, the Supreme Court’s 2019 Ayodhya judgment rekindled demands for reclaiming other religious sites, fuelling arguments over the Act’s constitutionality.

The petitioners argue that the law unjustly prevents Hindus from addressing historical wrongs and restoring religious sites destroyed or converted during invasions. They claim the Act imposes a one-sided restriction on Hindu, Buddhist, Jain and Sikh communities while exempting others.

On the other hand, Muslim groups, including the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, argue that striking down the law would shatter communal harmony and undermine the secular ethos of the Constitution. They caution that reopening these disputes could reignite fears among minorities and destabilise the country’s social fabric.