"Ayodhya Excluded, Mathura Included": Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Provisions Of Places of Worship Act

"Hindus are fighting for restoration of birthplace of Lord Krishna from hundreds of years and peaceful public agitation continues but while enacting the Act, Centre has excluded the birthplace of Lord Ram at Ayodhya but not the birthplace of Lord Krishna in Mathura, though both are the incarnations of Lord Vishnu, the creator."

Update: 2020-11-01 05:20 GMT
story

A writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the Constitutional validity of Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991, as they bar remedies against illegal encroachment on the places of worship and pilgrimages prior to August 15, 1947. It is stated that the impugned provisions abolish the pending suit/ proceedings in which cause...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

A writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the Constitutional validity of Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991, as they bar remedies against illegal encroachment on the places of worship and pilgrimages prior to August 15, 1947.

It is stated that the impugned provisions abolish the pending suit/ proceedings in which cause of action had arisen prior to August 15, 1947 and thus, the remedy available to aggrieved person through Court has been denied.

"Sections 2, 3, 4 of the Act has taken away the right to approach the Court and thus right to judicial remedy has been closed," the plea states.

The plea has been filed by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay, alleging that these provisions create an arbitrary, irrational retrospective cut-off date, and thus offend Article 14 (right to equality), Article 15 (right against discrimination), Article 21(right to life & personal liberty), Article 25 (right to pray practice prorogate religion), Article 26 (right to manage maintain administer places of worship-pilgrimage) and Article 29 (right to conserve culture) of the Indian Constitution.

It is further submitted that the impugned provisions violate the basic principle of Secularism and are contrary to the State's duty to protect historic places under Article 49 and to preserve religious cultural heritage under Article 51A of the Constitution.

It is further contended,

"Centre has barred the remedies against illegal encroachment on the places of worship and pilgrimages and now Hindus Jains Budhists Sikhs cannot file Suit or approach High Court under Article 226. Therefore, they won't be able to restore their places of worship and pilgrimage including temples-endowments in spirit of Articles 25-26 and illegal barbarian act of invaders will continue in perpetuity."

"Hindus are fighting for restoration of birthplace of Lord Krishna from hundreds of years and peaceful public agitation continues but while enacting the Act, Centre has excluded the birthplace of Lord Ram at Ayodhya but not the birthplace of Lord Krishna in Mathura, though both are the incarnations of Lord Vishnu, the creator."

Other grounds taken by the Petitioner are listed below:

  • The impugned Act has been enacted in the garb of 'Public order', which is State subject [Entry-1, List-II, Schedule-7]. Likewise, 'Pilgrimage, other than pilgrimages to places outside India' is also State subject [Entry-7, List-II, Schedule-7]. Therefore, Centre has no legislative competence to enact the impugned Act.
  • Article 13(2) prohibits the State to make law to take away the rights conferred under Part-III but the impugned Act takes away the rights of Hindus Jains Buddhist Sikhs to restore their 'places of worship and pilgrimages', destroyed by barbaric invaders.
  • Right to justice, right to judicial remedy, right to dignity are integral part of Article 21 but impugned Act brazenly offends them.
  • Only those places can be protected, which were erected or constructed in accordance with personal law of the person erected or constructed them, but places erected or constructed in derogation of the personal law, cannot be termed as a 'place of worship'.
  • Centre neither can take away the power of Civil Courts to entertain the suit for restoration nor can take the power of High Courts and Supreme Court conferred under Article 226 and 32.

Prayers

a) direct and declare that Section 2 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 is void and unconstitutional for being violative of Articles 14,15,21,25,26,29 of the Constitution, in so far as it seeks to validate 'places of worship', illegally made by barbaric invaders;

b) direct and declare that Section 3 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 is void and unconstitutional for being violative of Articles 14,15,21,25,26,29 of the Constitution, in so far as it seeks to validate 'places of worship', illegally made by barbaric invaders;

c) direct and declare that Section 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 is void and unconstitutional for being violative of Articles 14,15,21,25,26,29 of the Constitution, in so far as it seeks to validate 'places of worship', illegally made by barbaric invaders;

Click Here To Download Petition

Read Petition


Tags:    

Similar News