On Monday, the Supreme Court decided to postpone discussions about a law that protects places of worship until the first week of April. A group of judges, including Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, said a larger group of three judges would hear the case.
Earlier that day, the court was unhappy with the increase of new cases related to this law, called the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. This law ensures that the religious character of a site remains the same as it was on August 15, 1947. The Chief Justice expressed concern that they might not have enough time to address all the new cases being brought up, mentioning that they might set a later date in March.
In December, the court had paused several lawsuits from Hindu groups wanting to assess the original religious character of certain mosques like the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi and others. These petitions were supposed to be heard on February 17, but new petitions continue to be filed. For example, leaders from different political parties, like AIMIM’s Asaduddin Owaisi and Congress’s Iqra Choudhary, have requested that this law be enforced fairly to keep peace and harmony among various communities.
Choudhary highlighted that many legal actions against mosques are starting to create tensions. Meanwhile, the court had already agreed to look into a separate case brought by Owaisi, asking for similar protection.
On the other side, a Hindu organization, the Akhil Bhartiya Sant Samiti, wants to participate in these cases to ensure the law stays valid. Currently, around six main petitions, including one from lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay, are challenging parts of the 1991 law, arguing that it limits people’s rights to seek legal action over places of worship.
The law aims to keep the current religious status of worship sites like they were in 1947, not affecting the well-known Ayodhya dispute over the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid. Muslim groups like the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind wish for strict enforcement of this law to maintain peace. They argue some petitioners are trying to exploit the law and file claims about mosques that are currently protected.
Leave a Reply