New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday (January 2) agreed to hear a plea filed by All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) chief Asaduddin Owaisi seeking the implementation of the Places of Worship Act, 1991 that seeks to maintain the religious character of a place as it existed on August 15, 1947.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar directed the plea filed by the AIMIM chief be tagged with pending cases on the issue and said that it would be taken up on February 17 along with the other pending matters.
Conversion of any place of worship is prohibited under 1991 law
Under the 1991 Places of Worship Act, conversion of any place of worship is prohibited and the Act provides for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947. The 1991 Act is not applicable on the dispute pertaining to Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri masjid in Ayodhya.
Apex Court is seized of several pleas and cross-pleas on the matter
The top court is seized of several petitions challenging constitutional validity of the 1991 Act, including Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed by lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay and former Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy. Several pleas for impleadment into the matter have also been filed challenging the petition filed against the Act.
What did apex court say on December 12?
The apex court had on December 12, while hearing a batch of pleas and cross-pleas, had restrained all courts in the country from passing any orders on pending pleas seeking to reclaim religious places.
“As the matter is subjudice before this court we deem it fit to direct that no fresh suits shall be registered or proceedings be ordered. In the pending suits courts would not pass any effective order or final orders. When a matter is pending before us is it just and fair for any other court to examine it. We are on vires as well as ambit of the act,” the top court had said and added, “Our direction includes that no other court shall pass any specific directions of surveys, no effective interim order shall be passed till the court concludes this case.”
