The Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), represented by its General Secretary and Kerala MLA PK Kunhalikutty, along with Lok Sabha MP ET Muhammed Basheer (Secretary of IUML), has submitted an intervention application before the Supreme Court in response to pleas challenging the validity of the Places of Worship Act, 1991.
The application emphasizes that the 1991 Act is essential for protecting secularism and the religious freedoms of all faiths in India. Since secularism forms a part of the basic structure of the Constitution, even Parliament lacks the authority to amend the Act.
Highlighting that the Act has been in force for the past 33 years, the applicants outline its two primary objectives:
1. Prohibition of conversion of any place of worship: The Act mandates that the character of a public place of worship cannot be altered, thus ensuring stability for the future.
2. Preservation of the religious character of places of worship as they stood on August 15, 1947, when India became a modern, democratic, and sovereign state.
The application underscores the significance of the 1947 cut-off date, marking the nation’s emergence as a secular state with no official religion and equal rights for all religious communities. By maintaining the sanctity of places of worship as they existed on that date, the Act fosters unity, peace, and mutual respect in India’s diverse society.
Referring to the recent incidents in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, the applicants assert that effective implementation of the 1991 Act could have averted such events, potentially saving the lives of six youth. They also argue that the Act addresses the proliferation of legal disputes concerning places of worship, thereby curbing the issues it was designed to prevent.
The case is scheduled for hearing tomorrow before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan.
The lead petition (Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India), filed in 2020, prompted the Court to issue a notice to the Union Government in March 2021. Since then, other similar petitions have been filed challenging the Act, which seeks to preserve the status quo of religious structures as they were on August 15, 1947, and prohibits legal actions aimed at altering them. The Union Government has yet to file its counter-affidavit, despite multiple extensions granted by the Court.
Several entities have recently filed intervention applications in the matter, including the Gyanvapi Mosque Managing Committee, Maharashtra MLA Dr. Jitendra Satish Awhad (NCP-SP), Communist Party of India (Marxist) led by Politburo member Prakash Karat, the Mathura Shahi Idgah Masjid Committee, and Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Jha.
The Gyanvapi Mosque Managing Committee asserts that it is a key stakeholder due to the numerous suits filed for the mosque’s removal, which the Act prohibits under Sections 3 and 4.
NCP-SP MLA Awhad highlights ongoing efforts to build trust and unity among communities in the Mumbra-Kalwa region, cautioning that weakening the Act could undermine these initiatives.
The CPI(M) emphasizes that the Act is vital for maintaining India’s secular framework by preventing alterations to the religious character of places of worship as they stood in 1947. The party underscores the Act’s role in fostering communal harmony and preventing conflicts over historical disputes.
The Shahi Idgah Masjid Committee seeks intervention, noting the potential impact of the Court’s decision on its interests.
Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Jha argues that the Act underscores the obligations of a secular state and India’s commitment to religious equality, leaving no grounds for the Court to intervene or invalidate the legislation.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 1246/2020 (and connected matters)
