Civil Courts Can't Run A Race With Supreme Court, There Is A Judgment Upholding Places Of Worship Act : SC

While passing a significant order halting fresh suits and survey orders against religious places, the Supreme Court on Thursday (December 12) orally said that the civil courts "were running a race" by passing orders ignoring the Supreme Court's 5-judge judgment in the Ayodhya case which upheld the Places of Worship(Special Provisions) Act, 1991.A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Places of Worship Act (Special Provisions) Act 1991. A petition filed by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind seeking the implementation of the Act was also listed today.During the hearing, addressing Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, Justice KV Viswanathan said, "Mr SG, plea challenges the constitutionality of the Act...there is a larger question...one of the arguments you have to meet...S.3 one view is it is only an effective reiteration of already embedded constitutional principles." Section 3 of the Act prohibits the conversion of a religious place from its character which stood as on August 15, 1947.Justice Viswanathan then added, "Civil courts can't run a race with the Supreme Court. That is why there has to be a stay. You have a judgment of 5 judges." The judge was seemingly referring to a hasty ex-parte order passed by a trial court in Sambhal for the survey of a mosque, which triggered violence killing four persons. The CJI at the outset noted that the reply of the Union has not been placed on record yet. Allowing Solicitor General (SG), Tushar Mehta time to file the reply, the CJI expressly said that "Till the next date of hearing, no further suits can be filed or registered" However, he later clarified that "Further suits can be filed, but they won't be registered" During the hearing, the Court was informed that a total of 18 suits is pending across different Court in the country with regard to 10 different places of worship. Senior Advocate AM Singhvi appearing for one of the intervenors stressed for status quo on the pending suits till the present bench is seized of the issue of the Act's validity. He opined, "There should be quietus in the meantime. Interim order required in pending suits." The Solicitor General, while asserting that he would take an independent stand, raised a legal issue whether a non-party can challenge the maintainability of a suit. "So far as intra party suits are concerned, can third party come and seek stay?," he submitted.When CJI said that the bench was proposing to pass the order to halt fresh suits, Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria (for petitioners), asked if such an order could be passed in petitions challenging the Act. CJI pointed out that a petition seeking the enforcement of the Act was also listed. The Court passed the following order :"As the matter is sub-judice before this Court, we deem it appropriate to direct that while suits may be filed, no suits would be registered and proceedings undertaken till further orders of this Court. We also direct that in the pending suits, the Courts would not pass any effective interim orders or final orders, including orders of survey till the next date of hearing."The Union Government has been asked to file its reply within 4 weeks.What Is The Challenge 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 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. On July 11, 2023, the Court asked the Union to file the counter by October 31, 2023.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. Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UoI And Ors. WP(C) No. 1246/2020 and connected matters

Civil Courts Can't Run A Race With Supreme Court, There Is A Judgment Upholding Places Of Worship Act : SC

Anmol Kaur Bawa

Tags