MP Iqra Choudhary Approaches Supreme Court Seeking Strict Implementation Of Places Of Worship Act

The bench of CJI Sanijiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar today tagged the petition with connected petitions, which challenge the constitutionality of the Places of Worship Act. 

When the matter was taken, CJI verbally remarked, "Why so many new petitions are being filed? Every week we get one."

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Choudhary.

The petition stated that the repeated institution of suits targeting mosques or dargahs, followed by hasty judicial orders for surveys without any scrutiny whatsoever as to the merits and admissibility of the claim, risks stoking communal tensions and undermining the constitutional values of harmony and tolerance. "The failure to address this disturbing trend has the potential to tear apart the secular fabric of this country," the petitioner stated.

The plea mainly argues : (1) As per the doctrine of non-retrogression recognized in the Ram Janmabhumi Temple Case, it would be impermissible to circumvent the provisions of 1991 Act;

(2) The definition of 'ancient monuments' under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 cannot be interpreted to include any place of worship. Doing so would be a violation of the Fundamental Rights under Articles 25, 26 and 29.

"It is important to note that this definition of an 'ancient monument' is not an inclusive definition since the definition begins with the phrase 'means'. In other words, any religious structure cannot in terms of the definition per se be impacted by virtue of this definition, and if so impacted, would run counter to Articles 25, 26, and 29 of the Constitution, because these Articles are only subject to reasonable restrictions based on public order, morality, and health."

"Looking merely at the definition of an 'ancient monument', a bare reading would disclose that it does not by definition include places of worship unless specifically mentioned in any of the provisions of the 1958 Act."

S.4 of 1991 Act declares that the religious character of a place of worship existing on the 15th day of August 1947 shall continue to be the same as it existed on that day. It further states that any place of worship, which is an ancient and historical monument or an archaeological site or remains covered by the 1958 Act, will not be covered under the S.4 protection..

In the petition, Choudhary cited the violence in Sambhal which occurred after a survey order passed by a trial court against a 16th-century mosque.

Reference was also made to how the ex-parte interim orders were granted by trial courts for allowing a survey of mosques/dargahs without "any preliminary consideration or examination of the legal or factual nuances, hastily ordering the conduct of a survey to “ascertain facts.”

The following prayers have been sought :

a. Issue directions for the full implementation of the letter and spirit of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991;

b.Declare that the definition of 'ancient monument' under Section 2(a) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, does not include places of worship, any interpretation to the contrary would be violative of Articles 25, 26, and 29 of the Constitution of India, and that any pending proceedings under the 1958 Act seeking any relief related to a place of worship that would otherwise be barred under the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 shall abate forthwith;

c. Restrain all Courts within the territory of India from entertaining or admitting any suit/petition that seeks to directly or indirectly effect a change in the religious character of any place of worship as of August 15, 1947, and from passing any order(s) thereon;

d. Restrain all Courts within the territory of India from passing any order(s) in any such pending suit/petition seeking to directly or indirectly effect a change in the religious character of any place of worship as of August 15, 1947;

e. In the alternative, and wholly without prejudice, issue a writ in the nature of declaration or any other appropriate writ, order, direction, framing guidelines for the limited ambit of consideration of such suits/petitions and to provide for safeguards to prevent the violation of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991; 

Notably, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan on December 12, 2024 passed a significant order halting fresh suits and survey orders against religious places.

The Court also ordered that in pending suits (such as those concerning Gyanvapi mosque, Mathura Shahi Idgah, Sambhal Jama Masjid etc.), the Courts should not pass effective interim or final orders, including orders for survey. The interim order was passed while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 and also a petition seeking the implementation of the Act.

A detailed account of disputes against Mosques and Dargahs claiming temples beneath them can be read here.

What Is The Challenge To The Places Of Worship Act  About?

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 also 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.

Notably, intervention applications in the matter have also been 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) , Mathura Shahi Idgah Masjid Committee and Manoj Jha, Member of Rajya Sabha belonging to RJD.

The main contention raised by the intervenors is that the PoW Act was crucial for maintaining communal harmony in the country. The Gyanvapi Mosque Committee and Shahi Idgah Masjid Committee further argue that considering the nature of suits filed against the respective mosques, they are also key stakeholders in the outcome of the present petition.

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

The petitioners argue that the law is arbitrary and unreasonable and infringes the fundamental right to practice religion, leading to the violation of the fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 25 of the Constitution.

Iqra Choudhary is represented by Sr Advocate Kapil Sibal, and Advocates Mushtaq Salim, Lzafeer Ahmad B F, Aparajita Jamwal, Sumedha Sarkar, Awstika Das and Arif Ali.

Case Details : Iqra Choudhary v. Union of India & Ors. Diary No. 2350/2025