Supreme Court English news | Supreme Court, Latest News & Live Updates in English | English News (Latest English News) at Lokmattimes.com

The Supreme Court of India, in its ruling on the Place of Worship Act case on Thursday, December 12, said that no new Mandir-Masjid suits can be registered in the country until it hears and disposes of the petitions.The three-judge bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and K V Viswanathan, said whatever cases are registered will go on. The hearing was on the batch of PILs challenging the validity of certain provisions of a 1991 law that stops people from filing cases to reclaim a place of worship or seek a change in its character from what prevailed on August 15, 1947.The top court ordered reply to cross-pleas against or seeking implementation of statute. The matter was heard against the backdrop of several suits filed in various courts, including those related to the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi, Shahi Idgah Mosque in Mathura, and Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal. The suits claimed these were built after destroying ancient temples and sought permission to allow Hindus to offer prayers there.The bench also granted four weeks to Centre to file an affidavit in a batch of petitions challenging certain provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provision) Act, 1991, that prohibit the filing of a lawsuit to reclaim a place of worship or seek a change in its character from what prevailed on August 15, 1947. The pleas challenged the Places of Worship Act saying that the Act takes away the rights of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs to restore their 'places of worship and pilgrimages', destroyed by invaders.Daughter of the Kashi Royal Family, Maharaja Kumari Krishna Priya; BJP leader Subramanian Swamy; Chintamani Malviya, former Member of Parliament; Anil Kabotra, a retired army officer; advocates Chandra Shekhar; Rudra Vikram Singh, resident of Varanasi; Swami Jeetendranand Saraswati, a religious leader; Devkinandan Thakur Ji, resident of Mathura and a religious guru and advocate Ashwini Upadhyay among others have filed the pleas in the apex court against the 1991 Act.The 1991 provision is an Act to prohibit conversion of any place of worship and to provide for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, India Muslim Personal Law Board, Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masjid which manages the mosque in the Gyanvapi complex, Shahi Idgah mosque committee of Mathura, among others, also filed applications in the top court against the petitions challenging the validity of certain provisions of the 1991 law. They challenged the petitions filed by some Hindu petitioners saying that entertaining the pleas against the Act will open floodgates of litigations against countless mosques across India.Filing intervention application in the case they sought dismissal of pleas challenging the Places of Worship Act. One of the pleas challenging the 1991 Act stated, "The Act excludes the birthplace of Lord Rama but includes the birthplace of Lord Krishna, though both are the incarnation of Lord Vishnu, the creator and equally worshipped all over the world."The pleas further stated that the Act blatantly offends the right of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs to restore, manage, maintain and administer the places of worship and pilgrimage guaranteed under Article 26 of the Indian Constitution. The petitions filed have challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991, which it said violates the principles of secularism and the rule of law, which is an integral part of the Preamble and the basic structure of the Constitution.The pleas said that the Act has taken away the right to approach the Court and thus right to judicial remedy has been closed.Section 3 of the Act bars the conversion of places of worship. It states, "No person shall convert any place of worship of any religious denomination or any section thereof into a place of worship of a different section of the same religious denomination or of a different religious denomination or any section thereof."Section 4 bars filing of any suit or initiating any other legal proceeding for a conversion of the religious character of any place of worship, as existing on August 15, 1947."The Places of Worship Act 1991 is void and unconstitutional for many reasons," the plea said, adding that it offends the right of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs to pray, profess, practice and prorogate religion (Article 25), the petitions said."It also infringes on their right to manage, maintain and administer the places of worship and pilgrimage (Article 26)," Pleas added."The Act deprives these communities from owning/acquiring religious properties belonging to deity (misappropriated by other communities) And also takes away the right to take back their places of worship and pilgrimage and the property which belong to deity," stated the pleas.It also mentioned that the Act further deprives Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs to take back their places of worship and pilgrimage connected with cultural heritage (Article 29) and it also restricts them to restore the possession of places of worship and pilgrimage but allows Muslims to claim under Section 107, Waqf Act."It is respectfully submitted that the Central Government by making impugned provision (Places of Worship Act 1991) in the year of 1991 has created arbitrary irrational retrospective cutoff date, declared that character of places of worship and pilgrimage shall be maintained as it was on August 15, 1947 and no suit or proceeding shall lie in the court in respect of the dispute against encroachment done by barbaric fundamentalist invaders and such proceeding shall stand abated," the PILs stated.

Supreme CourtFOLLOW

Supreme court, Latest News

Mumbai: In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India has dismissed a petition filed by Century Textiles & ... ...

The Supreme Court criticised the government's financial stance on paying salaries and pensions to district judiciary judges, saying states ... ...

The Supreme Court has made a significant blow to children who abandon their parents after transferring property to their ... ...

The Supreme Court on Friday instructed the Maharashtra government to clarify whether there is any plan to cut down ... ...

In the latest development of the Bengaluru AI engineer Atul Subhash suicide case, the deceased techie's mother has approached ... ...

The Supreme Court has requested a response from the Karnataka government regarding its challenge to the High Court's decision ... ...

The suicide of Bengaluru-based AI engineer Atul Subhash has sparked nationwide discussion. Addressing the case, the Supreme Court said ... ...

The Supreme Court of India, in its ruling on the Place of Worship Act case on Thursday, December 12, ... ...