SC puts off cases challenging Places of Worship Act

Home » SC puts off cases challenging Places of Worship Act

The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 preserves the religious character of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947.
The law prohibits the conversion of religious sites and bars litigation over their ownership, with the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute being the only exception.
Several petitions have challenged the validity of the Act, arguing that it denies Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs the right to reclaim religious sites allegedly forcibly converted in the past.
The case has been pending for over four years, with the Centre yet to file a response.

Relevance : GS 2(Judiciary ,Polity)

The case was scheduled for hearing on February 12, 2024, but the SC adjourned it to April 2024 due to the Centre’s failure to submit a counter-affidavit.
The SC has previously issued eight orders (October 2022–December 2024) directing the Centre to respond.
The court dismissed fresh writ petitions where notices had not been issued but allowed applications raising new legal grounds.

(A) Arguments Supporting the Act

The 1991 Act is described as a constitutional safeguard against communal disputes and retrogression.
Petitioners argue that recent civil court orders mandating mosque surveys violate Section 3 (prohibits religious conversion) and Section 4 (mandates maintaining religious character as of 1947).

(B) Arguments Challenging the Act

Opponents argue that the Act denies Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs the right to reclaim religious sites allegedly encroached upon by “fundamentalist invaders.”
They claim the Act is unconstitutional for restricting the right to legal recourse under Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 25 (Freedom of Religion).
On December 12, 2023, the SC barred lower courts from registering fresh suits aimed at reclaiming temples destroyed by Mughal rulers in the 16th century.

The case involves fundamental constitutional questions on religious rights, historical claims, and judicial intervention.
The Centre’s silence raises questions about its stance on balancing historical grievances with constitutional secularism.
SC’s handling of the case may set a precedent for future disputes over religious sites and communal harmony.

The Centre’s delay in filing a response has prolonged legal uncertainty.
The SC is cautious about flooding of petitions and has streamlined its approach by focusing only on new legal grounds.
The verdict in this case could have far-reaching socio-political and legal consequences.

The Supreme Court will resume hearings in April 2024.
The Centre is expected to finally submit its counter-affidavit, clarifying its legal position.
The case could lead to judicial review of the 1991 Act’s constitutionality and influence future litigation over religious sites in India.