'Places Of Worship Act Necessary To Preserve Nation's Secular Character' : RJD MP Manoj Jha Files Intervention In Supreme Court

Manoj Kumar Jha, Member of Rajya Sabha belonging to RJD, has filed an intervention before the Supreme Court in the pleas challenging the validity of the Places of Worship Act 1991.

The application, filed through Advocate-on-Record Fauzia Shakil, states that the 1991 Act is not in contravention of any of the fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution and in fact promotes the basic tenets of the Constitution.

"the 1991 Act is a crucial piece of legislation that aligns with the objectives of the Indian Constitution, as outlined in the Preamble as well as under Articles 14, 15, 25, 26, and 51A. Further, it was held by this Hon'ble Court that this Act is necessary to uphold and preserve the nation's secular values. It serves as a legislative guarantee to ensure that all places of worship, as they existed on 15-08-1947, are protected and maintained by the State."

It is further averred that the Act highlights the obligations of a secular State and India's commitment to the quality of all religion. As such, there is no need for the top Court to intervene or ground to declare the Act unconstitutional.

In support of his submissions, Jha's application highlights that in recent times, there is a rise in sectarian politics over constitutional values. "The recent incidents of weaponizing religion, polarizing communities and fostering a divisive agenda is creating repercussions where dissent and diversity face increasing threats", it states.

The matter is listed tomorrow before a bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar, KV Viswanathan.

To recap, the lead petition (Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India) was filed in 2020, in which the Court issued notice to the Union Government in March 2021. Later, few other similar petitions were filed challenging the statute which seeks to preserve the status quo with respect to religious structures as they stood on August 15, 1947, and prohibits legal proceedings seeking their conversion.

The Union Government is yet to file its counter-affidavit in the matter, despite several extensions given by the Court.

Notably, intervention applications in the matter were also lately filed by the Gyanvapi Mosque Managing Committee, Maharashtra MLA [NCP (SP)] Dr. Jitendra Satish Awhad, Communist Party of India (Marxist) (represented by Mr. Prakash Karat, Member Politburo) and Mathura Shahi Idgah Masjid Committee.

In its application, the Gyanvapi Mosque Managing Committee has stated that it is a key stakeholder in the legal deliberation since several suits have been filed for removal of the mosque despite the bar under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.

NCP (SP) MLA Awhad, on the other hand, has highlighted the ongoing efforts to rebuild trust and unity among communities in the Mumbra-Kalwa region (from where he was elected) and warned that any dilution of the Act could undermine these strides toward peace.

In the CPI(M) application, it is stated that the Act has an important role in preserving India's secular fabric by prohibiting the alteration of the religious character of places of worship as it stood on August 15, 1947. It is further emphasized that the Act is crucial for maintaining communal harmony and preventing conflicts that may arise from historical disputes.

The Shahi Idgah Masjid Committee, per contra, seeks intervention on the basis that the decision in the matter will impact it.

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India., W.P. (C) No. 1246/2020 (and connected matters)