NewKerala.com

Supreme Court Signals Impending Review of Places of Worship Act Validity

The Supreme Court has indicated it will soon hear a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship Act, 1991. The Act legally freezes the religious character of all places of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947. The Court made these observations while dismissing an intervention application related to proceedings at the Ajmer Sharif Dargah. The Chief Justice stated the hearing would be scheduled after the conclusion of a separate 9-judge bench case.

Key Points: SC to Soon Examine Validity of Places of Worship Act

  • SC to hear validity of Places of Worship Act
  • Act freezes religious character of sites as of Aug 15, 1947
  • Court dismissed plea against Ajmer court proceedings
  • December 2024 order bars lower courts from related cases
3 min read

"Show must go on": SC hints it will examine validity of Places of Worship Act soon

Supreme Court hints at hearing challenges to the 1991 Places of Worship Act, which freezes religious character of sites as of 1947.

"Show must go on! - Chief Justice of India Surya Kant"

New Delhi, February 18

The Supreme Court on Wednesday hinted that it will soon hear and adjudicate a batch of pleas challenging the validity of the Places of Worship Act, 1991.

The Act prohibits converting the religious character of any place of worship to that as it was on August 15, 1947, and maintaining that religious character as of that date. Violations of this act are deemed unlawful.

The verbal observation came from a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi while refusing to entertain a plea filed by one Imran A. challenging a decision of an Ajmer court to initiate proceedings on a suit seeking a survey by Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) on the Ajmer Sharif Dargah claiming that the structure was built over an ancient Shiva Temple.

The apex court had, in December 2024, directed that no court in the country shall register any suit, initiate proceedings or pass effective orders in cases pertaining to the Places of Worship Act, while the issue is pending to be adjudicated by the apex court.

Based on the aforesaid directions, the counsel appearing for the applicant argued that the (Ajmer) court should be restrained from doing anything contrary to the Supreme Court's (earlier) order.

Dismissing the plea, which was filed as an intervention application (IA) in the batch of pleas challenging the validity of the Places of Worship Act, the apex court expressed that if it ever notices any court passing an order in defiance of the Court's earlier directions, it will certainly examine it.

"We have passed an order, and it's binding on one and all one. If someone places an order in defiance of that, we will review it. And if yes, then consequences will follow", the CJI said.

During the hearing, Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain sought that his plea seeking vacation of the apex court's December 2024 direction be listed for hearing.

The Court assured Jain that his plea would be listed and advised him to check with the Court's registry.

The Court also expressed that the pending issue with respect to the validity of the Places of Worship Act will be examined by it. However, it did not specify a hearing date, as yet.

"Let us see. We will finalise the hearing dates after the 9-judge bench case (the larger issue on Sabrimala case). We will adjust it somewhere. Show must go on!", the CJI said.

- ANI

Share this article:

Reader Comments

P
Priyanka N
"Show must go on" is an interesting choice of words from the CJI. This is a deeply sensitive issue for millions. I hope the examination is thorough and respects the historical context, not just legal technicalities. Justice delayed is justice denied.
V
Vikram M
The Act itself needs a relook. Why should 1947 be the cut-off? What about the injustices that happened for centuries before that? A balanced approach is needed, but pretending history started in 1947 is not the answer.
A
Anjali F
The court's priority should be maintaining peace. Endless litigation on places of worship helps no one. We need to focus on development and the future, not constantly fighting over the past. Let the law stand as it is.
S
Sarah B
As an observer, the legal principle here seems clear - an order of the Supreme Court is binding. The hint about examining the Act's validity is the bigger story. This could have significant implications for India's secular framework.
K
Karthik V
Respectfully, the court should have given a clearer timeline instead of "we will adjust it somewhere." This creates uncertainty. People on both sides of the debate are anxious. A bit more clarity would have been appreciated.
M
Meera T
The Ajmer

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50