In the case concerning the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which prohibits a lawsuit from being brought to recover a place of worship or alter its character, Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna has voiced his disapproval of the numerous new petitions that have been submitted. “Enough is enough. “This has to stop,” he said during a hearing this morning, adding that the Supreme Court will not consider any more petitions in this case.
However, although declining to provide notice on the newly filed petitions thus far, the court has permitted the filing of an intervention petition with additional grounds. In light of legal efforts to recapture demolished Hindu temples, the Supreme Court’s stern comments came as it proceeded to hear petitions regarding the legality of the Places of Worship Act.
In 1991, a regulation was created that forbade a house of worship from changing its religious identity from what it was on August 15, 1947. It had no jurisdiction over the Ram Janmabhoomi controversy. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay filed the initial challenge regarding the law’s legitimacy, but the court last year stopped 18 cases brought by Hindu groups attempting to recapture 10 mosques and grouped together all issues pertaining to temple-mosque disputes. This covers the conflicts between the Sambhal mosque, Kashi Vishwanath and Gyanvapi mosque, and Shahi Idgah and Krishna Janmbhoomi.
Right-wing organizations and Hindu organizations opposed the measure, while a number of opposition parties rushed to the highest court to defend it. The most recent political groups to petition the Supreme Court for severe enforcement of the statute are Asaduddin Owaisi’s AIMIM and the Congress, which was in power when it was passed. According to a different petitioner who appeared in court on Monday, everyone has the right to live in peace, so the law should be respected.
The CJI stated during the hearing that although it had previously permitted the filing of fresh petitions, such interventions must have a cap. The petitioners’ senior counsel, Vikas Singh, further noted that the Center had not yet responded. The hearing has been deferred to the first week of April.
