Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind Moves Supreme Court Seeking Proper Enforcement Of Places Of Worship Act

The petition filed by the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind has submitted that Muslim Places of Worship are being made the subject matter of frivolous controversies which is in clear violation of the 1991 Act and despite there being a bar such proceedings are being permitted to proceed with interim orders altering the status quo which has been maintained for ages in the Muslim Places of Worship.

The petition submitted that post the 5- judge bench judgment in the Ram Janmbhoomi matter, numerous suits are being filed averring that Muslim Places of Worships like mosques and tombs and which have been such even prior to 1947 have been erected by destroying Hindu Temples or places of worship. "It has also been a common averment that Muslim Invaders such as Mughal emperors have built Muslim places of worship such as Masjids after destroying Hindu places of worship such as Temples."

It was asserted in the plea filed by Advocate Ejaz Maqbool that, "Without prejudice to the foregoing, even if all these allegations are assumed to be true, it is nothing but seeking retrogression, which, as held by this Hon'ble Court in M. Siddiq's case is against the essential feature of our secular values." The Court had in its judgment in the Ram Janmbhoomi matter held that law cannot be used as a device to reach back in time and provide a legal remedy to every person who disagrees with the course which history has taken and that the courts of today cannot take cognizance of historical rights and wrongs unless it is shown that their legal consequences are enforceable in the present.

The petition has settled by Senior Advocate Dr Rajeev Dhavan and drawn by Advocates Ejaz Maqbool, Shahid Nadeem, Akriti Chaubey, Quaratulain and Saif Zia.

The plea pointed out that the Ram Janmbhoomi judgment held that, "The State, has by enacting the law, enforced a constitutional commitment and operationalised its constitutional obligations to uphold the equality of all religions and secularism which is a part of the basic features of the Constitution. The Places of Worship 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 the Indian polity, which is one of the basic features of the Constitution. Non-retrogression is a foundational feature of the fundamental constitutional principles of which secularism is a core component. The Places of Worship Act is thus a legislative intervention which preserves non-retrogression as an essential feature of our secular values."

Placing reliance on the excerpt the plea suggested that the suits which rest on the basis that Muslim invaders allegedly converted the Hindu Places of Worship cannot be entertained in view of the law laid down by the 5 judges Constitution Bench. The petition also pointed out that mere mentioning that the place of worship in question was built by a Muslim Invader/Mughal emperor, bars the suit under Section 4 of the 1991 Act which provides the date of 15th August 1947 as the cut off date and preserves the character of the place as it existed on that date.

The petition also submitted that the purpose of the 1991 Act is being defeated by keeping the matters pending and passing orders completely against the spirit of the 1991 Act and such orders and pendency is encouraging communal polarisation. The petition also stated that, "the frivolous allegations made in the suits seeking to convert Muslim places of worship are many times casted in a way which demonises the entire Muslim community. Such allegations are likely to trigger communal antagonism and hatred resulting in fissiparous tendencies gaining foothold, undermining and affecting communal harmony."

The petition thus prayed for,

"(a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other writ, order or direction to ensure proper and effective enforcement of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991; and/or

(b) Lay down guidelines for effectively dealing with cases which are based on the sole premise of correcting historical wrongs and changing the existing character of a place of worship belonging to one religious denomination to that of another; and/or

(c) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other writ, order or direction to ensure that the issue of the suit being barred by the provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 will be decided as a preliminary issue; and/or

(d) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other writ, order or direction to ensure that if any suit is rejected as barred by the provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 then heavy costs shall be imposed on the Plaintiff(s)".

The Supreme Court is considering a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship Act.