"Mischievous Petition, Aims At Isolating Muslim Community ": Trustee Of Lucknow Mosque Moves SC Opposing PIL Challenging Provisions Of Places Of Worship Act

A co-mutawalli of 350-year-old ''TeelyWali masjid'' of Lucknow, Wasif Hasan, has approached the Supreme Court seeking intervention in the pending PIL challenging provisions of the Places of Worship Act.

The applicant has opposed the plea filed by lawyer and BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, claiming that the petition is a mischievous one which aims at isolating the Muslim Community as a separate category from other religious communities in India.

Calling the language of the petition 'shocking', the applicant has stated that the petitioner has sought to set up an allegedly factual case of fundamentalist barbarians coming to India and destroying places of worship without any facts, sources or setting up of a case that any such places were destroyed.

According to the applicant, the plea has repeatedly invoked rights of Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, and Buddhists and deliberately excluded Muslims and Christians. Therefore, its seeking the Supreme Court's approval on a false narrative that Muslims and Christians are invaders and less a part of this country.

The applicant has argued that the plea has mischievously equated 'pilgrimages' with ' places of worship' which is not tenable on even the most basic dictionary meanings of these words.

The applicant has further claimed that the PIL seems to be an attempt to reopen the Ramjanmabhumi- Babri Masjid dispute, seeking to re agitate the issues settled by the Court in that dispute. If the Parliament, as wrongly contended by the petitioner, does not enjoy power to legislate about places of worship and the land they stand on, it will lead to complete reopening of Ram Janmanhumi- Babri Masjid dispute.

The applicant has contended that the petition is an attempt to strike at the very root of the sovereign, socialist, secular and democratic Republic, where religious grievance concocted towards petty political ends would have primacy over the national goal of modern development, of equal development, and creation of an India which would be an envy of the world.

The applicant has stated that while the country as a whole have been seeking to progress in a united fashion there have bee attempts by individuals including the petitioner to divide people emotionally on the basis of religion.

Barbarism lies in a lack of understanding and in a lack of shared emotions and fraternity. Such attempts to push India into the rank of religious states which are derided worldwide for their lack of modernism is unfortunate.

The applicant has argued that the petitioner's has challenged the 1991 Act on the grounds that the same violates Hindu law as it existed when Constitution was promulgated, and Articles 25,26,27 bar laws like the 1991 Act. However, the 1991 Act robs no one of the right to profess or practice their religion.

According to the applicant, the petitioner has suppressed Supreme Court's judgement in the case of M Siddiq vs Mahant Suresh Das where purpose of the 1991 Act was noted and on fact approved by a Constitution Bench, as a legislative instrument designed to protect the secular features of Indian polity, which is one of the basic features of the Constitution.

The judgement had further held that, non-retrogression is a foundational feature of the fundamental constitutional principles of which secularism is a core component, and the Places of Worship Act is thus a legislative intervention which preserves non-retrogression as an essential feature of our secular values.

The applicant has argued that the petitioner ought to have gone in review against the judgement in Siddiq's case instead of trying to score petty political points by seeking to attack the basic structure of the Constitution. The petitioner is making a direct assault against secular structure of the Constitution.

The present application has been filed in PIL filed challenging the Constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991 inasmuch as it bars remedies against illegal encroachment on the places of worship and pilgrimages prior to August 15, 1947.

A Bench comprising of CJI SA Bobde and Justice AS Bopanna had recently issued notices to the Home Ministry, Ministry of Law and the Ministry of Culture.

The plea, in particular challenges Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Act stating the same take away rights of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs to reclaim their places of worship through Courts.

The plea submits that the impugned provisions create an arbitrary, irrational retrospective cut-off date and legalize the illegal acts of invaders who encroached upon religious institutions back in the day.

It is thus alleged that the provisions violate the basic principle of Secularism and are contrary to the State's duty to protect historic places under Article 49 and to preserve religious cultural heritage under Article 51A of the Constitution.