The Supreme court bench comprising Chief Justice U.U.Lalit, Justice Ravindra Bhat, and Justice P.S. Narasimha have listed a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the provision of the Place of Worship (Special Provision) Act, 1991 for October 11, 2022.
The court also ordered the Commonwealth of India to submit its response within two weeks. The petition was made in violation of a law prohibiting appeals for unlawful trespassing on places of worship and pilgrimage sites prior to August 15, 1947.
The bench of Subramanian Swamy and several others challenged the 1991 Places of Worship Act. Apart from these, about 15 implied petitions were filed by parties supporting opposition to the law.
In the proceedings, Advocate Ejaz Maqbool, representing Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind (seeking to intervene in this matter), argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janambhoomi case had constitutional validity of the law.
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing in Upadhyay, argued that these observations were conclusive. Dr Subramanian Swamy said that he prayed to read the law for the liberation of the Kashi and Mathura temples as liberation from the Ayodhya conflict.
Lawyer J Saideepak on behalf of the daughter of the Kashi royal family submitted that exempting only Ayodhya Ram Mandir from the Act results in discrimination against other Sanatani denominations who regard temples at Kashi or Mathura as more revered.
The bench asked the Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta if the Centre has filed its response, to which the Solicitor General replied in the affirmative.
There are a host of applications seeking impleadment. We accept all of these applications and give affected applicants the freedom to intervene. The intervener must submit a written submission, which should not exceed five pages. Therefore, we issue a formal notice in this petition.
The petition filed by Ashwini Upadhyay specifically challenges Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Act which provides for equal rights for Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs.
After hundreds of years of peaceful public agitation, while the law was passed, the centre excluded Lord Ram’s birthplace in Ayodhya, but Lord Krishna’s birthplace in Mathura has been banned, but both are incarnations of Lord Vishnu, the Creator.
The illegal act of an intruder who broke into a religious site at the time. It has therefore been argued that this provision violates the basic principle of secularism and violates the State’s obligation to protect historic sites under Article 49 of the Constitution and to protect religious and cultural heritage under Article 51a of the Constitution.
This Article is also superseded by Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 15 (Right Against Discrimination), Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), and Article 25 (Right to Pray and Practice Religion). rights), in violation of Article 26. (Right to manage, maintain and manage pilgrimage sites) and Article 29 of the Indian Constitution (Right to preserve culture).
