The petition, filed by law student Nitin Upadhyay, questioned the constitutional validity of a critical provision within the 1991 Act. This provision stipulates that the religious character of a place of worship must be preserved as it existed on August 15, 1947, prohibiting any alterations thereafter. Although the court dismissed the fresh plea, it granted Upadhyay the liberty to submit an application within the existing batch of cases where the constitutional validity of the law is already under review.
The 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. However, the dispute relating to the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid at Ayodhya was kept out of its purview.
The plea has sought the apex court's direction allowing courts to pass appropriate orders to ascertain the original religious character of a place of worship. It has challenged section 4(2) of the Act that barred proceedings to change the religious character, besides prohibiting filing of fresh cases for the same.
The Act did not prohibit any scientific or documentary survey to ascertain the religious character of the place, the plea said.
In February, the apex court had expressed displeasure over filing of several pleas on the 1991 Act and said a three-judge bench would in April hear the pending post-notice petitions related to the law.
The top court, however, had granted liberty to some petitioners to file applications for intervention in the pending ones by citing new legal grounds. The top court, through its December 12, 2024 order, effectively stalled proceedings in about 18 lawsuits filed by various Hindu parties seeking survey to ascertain original religious character of 10 mosques, including Gyanvapi at Varanasi, Shahi Idgah Masjid at Mathura and Shahi Jama Masjid at Sambhal where four people died in clashes.
(With inputs from agencies)
About The Author
Comment List