'Implementation Of Places of Worship Act Could've Prevented Sambhal Incident': Muslim League Seeks Intervention In Supreme Court

The Indian Union Muslim League (represented by its General Secretary and Kerala MLA PK Kunhalikutty) and Lok Sabha MP ET Muhammed Basheer (Secretary of IUML) have filed an intervention application before the Supreme Court in the pleas challenging validity of the Places of Worship Act, 1991.

The application states that the 1991 Act seeks to protect secularism and religious freedoms of all faiths in the country. Since secularism has been held to be a part of basic structure of the Constitution, even Parliament is prohibited from amending the Act.

Pointing out that the Act is in existence since past 33 years, the applicants highlight two purposes thereof:

(i) prohibition of conversion of any place of worship. "In doing so, it speaks to the future by mandating that the character of a place of public worship shall not be altered";

(ii) imposition of a positive obligation to maintain religious character of every place of worship as it existed on 15 August 1947 when India achieved independence from colonial rule.

"This August 15, 1947 is crucial because on that date this nation was emerged as a modern, democratic and sovereign State thrusting back such barbarity into the past once and for all. From that date, people of this nation distinguished themselves as a State which has no official religion and which gives equal rights to all the different religious denominations", the plea states.

It is further asserted that by maintaining the sanctity of places of worship as they existed in 1947, the Act plays a critical role in fostering unity, peace, and mutual respect in India's diverse society.

"The recent incidents in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, underscore the critical relevance of this law. Had the 1991 Act been implemented in its letter and spirit, such incidents could have been avoided, and the lives of six youth could have been saved. Furthermore, the mushrooming of suits concerning places of worship is precisely the mischief sought to be curtailed by the introduction of this impugned Act."

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), the Mathura Shahi Idgah Masjid Committee and Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Jha.

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.

On his part, Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Jha claims that the Act highlights 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.

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