1 week Ago
New Delhi, December 12: In an important direction, the Supreme Court on Thursday restrained all the courts in the country from entertaining and passing any effective interim or final orders on any lawsuits seeking reliefs including survey of religious places under the 1991 law. The direction of a bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and K V Viswanathan came on a batch of pleas and cross pleas relating to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The 1991 law prohibits conversion of any place of worship and provides for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947.
Notably, the bench said no fresh suit would either be filed or registered till its further orders and in the pending cases, the courts would refrain from any “effective interim or final order” till its further orders. “We are examining the vires, contours and the ambit of 1991 Act,” the bench said, observing it would be appropriate to ask all other courts to “stay off their hands”. Worship Act Row: Mathura Shahi Eidgah Mosque Files Intervention Application in Supreme Court, a Day Ahead of SC Hearing on Pleas Challenging Validity of Places of Worship Act .
Several lawyers, appearing for Hindu side, opposed the order saying it should not be passed without hearing them. The bench asked the Centre to file its reply to the pleas and cross ones in four weeks and granted a further of four weeks to other parties to file their rejoinder after the Centre filed its reply. The bench would accord the hearing after completion of pleadings.
It, meanwhile, allowed pleas of various parties including Muslim bodies seeking to intervene in the proceedings. Congress Expresses Firm Commitment to Places of Worship Act Amid Row Over Claims on Mosque in Sambhal and Ajmer Sharif Dargah, Says BJP ‘Violating’ It . The top court is seized of as many as six pleas, including one filed by Ashwini Upadhyay who has prayed that Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, be set aside.
Among the various reasons submitted was the contention that these provisions take away the right of judicial remedy to reclaim a place of worship of any person or a religious group..
