SC puts off cases challenging Places of Worship Act

Case Background

• 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)

Supreme Court Proceedings & Delays

• 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.

Legal Issues Raised

(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.

Constitutional & Judicial Implications

• 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.

Key Takeaways

• 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.

Next Steps

• 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.