All India Muslim Personal Law Board Opposes Plea Challenging Places Of Worship Act In Supreme Court

In March 2021, the Supreme Court had issued notice in the petition filed by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay, challenging the Constitutional validity of the Act inasmuch as it bars remedies against illegal encroachment on the places of worship and pilgrimages prior to August 15, 1947.

Any dispute relating to the place of worship between different communities is highly sensitive, endangers the breach of public order and disturbs the peace and tranquility of the society. The very object and purpose of the Act is to put an end to such ancient and stale claims regarding the places of worship, the Board argued by way of an impleading application.

According to the Board, the Act is a progressive legislation, keeping in mind the secular values of Indian polity, and giving content to the right of every religious group to be treated equally by the state and enjoins the state to perform its functions as benevolent neutral in case of tensions between different religious groups. Therefore, the doctrine of non retrogression applies with full vigor in upholding the constitutional validity of the Act.

The non-retrogression principle holds that the government may extend protection beyond what the Constitution requires, but it cannot retreat from that extension once made.

The application stated,

Referring to the judgment in the case of M. Siddique (Ram Janmabhoomi case) vs. Suresh Das, the application points out that the Supreme Court had particularly observed that the Act imposes a non-derogable obligation towards enforcing our commitment to secularism under the Indian constitution. The law is hence a legislative instrument designed to protect the secular features of Indian polity, which is also one of the basic features of the Constitution, the application added quoting the judgment.

Also, to add on, the application clarified that all issues raised in the present PIL have already been answered by the Supreme Court in the said case.

Upadhyay's petition had challenged Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Act stating that it took away rights of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs to reclaim their places of worship through Courts.

In response, the application states that the Act does not pretend to amend the Constitution or violate Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioners' right to approach the court is not denied by the Act.

"The right to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 is undoubtedly a fundamental right, but our constitutional law gives discretion to the Supreme Courts (and High Courts) to entertain such a petition or not… The Supreme Court and High Courts also have self imposed limitations on the exercise of the power under Article 32 and 226."

There are irrefutable instances of communal violence in our country generated by such disputes relating to the places of worship between different communities. So, the law which is conceived for strengthening secularism, and the maintenance of public order cannot be challenged on the grounds that it violates the freedom of religion. Therefore, the Act does not violate Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution as well.

Claiming that the Act is religious neutral, the application proceeds to state that the Act is not violative of Articles 14 and 15 as well. Explaining this, the application detailed that the Act not only prohibits Hindus from approaching the court on the ground of reconversion of their alleged place of worship, but equally bars all the communities too.

The Board also questioned the veracity of the petitioner stating that the petitioner is in the habit of filing frivolous petitions from time to time. Throwing light onto the facts, the application said that on at least two occasions, the Chief Justice of India had rebuked the present Petitioner for filing such petitions.

Further, the application stated that the present petition seems to be mischievous in nature, as Vinay Katiyar, a BJP leader had earlier stated that "Temple building at Kashi and Mathura is very much on our agenda". The petition in fact even admits to this stated objective.

In conclusion, the plea observed that there appears to be a trend of filing petitions selectively targeting the issues related to a particular minority community with the intention to use the pendency of such cases to fuel hate politics on the ground. The Supreme Court must not allow such unregulated pleas which has the potential to create 'new rows', consequently leading to publicity stunts for the petitioners, the application stated.