Daughter Of Kashi Royal Family Head Moves Supreme Court Challenging Places Of Worship Act

The application submits that Act is a "textbook instance of a legislation that was passed in the most undemocratic of manners possible", without any regard for the fundamental rights of affected parties, in particular the right of formerly colonised indigenous communities to seek reclamation of occupied religious cum civilisational sites. In this regard, the IA states,

"The haste with which the Act was passed by the then dispensation without sufficient notice to members of the Parliament, in particular, the then Opposition, evidences the premeditated intent to not subject the contents of the Act and its implications to a democratic and informed debate. Quite apart from the problems associated with the process itself, it is humbly submitted that the direct consequence of the process as well as the end result is the unconstitutional truncation of the rights of affected indigenous communities to knock the doors of Courts of this country to seek enforcement of their fundamental rights and restoration of occupied sites to the original owners/stakeholders/guardians."

Before the introduction of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Bill, not even a rudimentary baseline study was undertaken to assess the number of inter and intra religious disputes pertaining to the character of religious sites, their status and the opinions of affected parties with respect to the Bill, the application states.

Further, section 5 of the Act excludes the then pending dispute relating to Shri Ramjanmabhoomi in Ayodhya from the application of the statute. This itself highlights in stark relief the discriminatory, arbitrary and capricious nature of the Act, the IA states. This is for three reasons, according to the application:

—First, if the pending nature of the Ayodhya dispute was the reason for such exemption, then a study ought to have been undertaken to identify the number of such pending disputes which too could have been given a similar exemption.

—Second, Shri Ramjanmabhoomi is sacred to Sanatanis, true. But every denomination holds dearer its own Kshetras and Deities. So, under Article 26, the right of Shaivaites to reclaim the occupied sites in Kashi which is dedicated to Lord Shiva has been short-changed compared to the claimants of Shri Ramjanmabhoomi.

—Third, by virtue of Section 5, the Act treats the rights of owners of Shri Ramjanmbhoomi as being superior to the rights of other Sanatani denominations, without any basis for such discriminatory treatment either in law or in Sanatana Dharma.

Further, in view of the recognition by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the Ayodhya Judgement of 2019 of the juristic and eternal character of a Deity once consecrated at a Kshetra, the Act permits and legalises continuously violates the rights of Sanatani Deities. "It is also submitted that the Ayodhya Verdict in no way grants its seal of approval to the impugned Act since the Act was not relevant 7 to the Shri Ramjanmabhoomi dispute thanks to its exemption under Section 5 of the very Act."

The application further contends that Act actively stands in the way of the truth being laid bare through constitutional means before a court of law through evidence which is legally admissible. Surely, it cannot be contended that the Constitution places a lesser premium on the truth and celebrates all other values, including secularism, at the expense of the truth. The IA reads,

"Therefore, to contend that the truth must be given a silent burial to preserve secularism and to maintain communal harmony is to commit an error of logic, apart from insensitively taking away the right of the victims of colonisation to present the evidence of the ravages of colonisation and its continuing injustice in "independent" Bharat, namely the continued occupation of their religious and civilisational sites which they continue to hold dear."

In June, the Supreme Court had refused to entertain additional petitions challenging the constitutional validity of various provisions of the Act but granted liberty to file intervention application in similar matters pending before it.

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India | WP 1246 OF 2020