New Delhi: A Hindu outfit has moved the Supreme Court seeking to intervene in cases filed challenging the validity of provisions of the Places of Worship Act, 1991.
The Akhil Bhartiya Sant Samiti, the Hindu outfit headquartered at Vrindavan and Varanasi, has challenged the sections 3 and 4 of the 1991 Act, submitting that these sections violated several fundamental rights including right to equality and freedom to practice religion.
Apex Court is seized of several pleas and cross-pleas on 1991 law
The apex court is seized of of several pleas challenging constitutional validity of the 1991 law, 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 1991 law.
Conversion of any place of worship is prohibited under 1991 law
Conversion of any place of worship is prohibited under the 1991 law, which provides for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947. The 1991 law is not applicable on the dispute pertaining to Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri masjid in Ayodhya.
What did the apex court say in its order passed on December 12
The apex court, while hearing pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the law and cross petitions seeking to strict implementation of the law to maintain communal harmony, on December 12 restrained all courts in the country from passing any orders, interim or final, 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 said on December 12 while hearing a bunch of pleas and cross-pleas. It had further said, “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.”
