'Consequences Of Striking Down Places Of Worship Act Bound To Be Drastic' : Gyanvapi Mosque Committee To Supreme Court

The Managing Committee of the Gyanvapi Mosque has filed an intervention before the Supreme Court in the pleas challenging the validity of the Places of Worship Act 1991. It said that the consequences of the declaration sought by the petitioner that the Act was unconstitutional "are bound to be drastic."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. In the intervention application, the Managing Committee stated that it was a key stakeholder in the legal deliberation since several suits have been filed claiming the removal of the mosque despite the bar under Sections 3 and 4 of the 1991 Act.S. 3 of the 1991 Act expressly bars the conversion of any place of worship of any religious denomination into another place of worship of a different section of the same religious denomination or a different religious denomination all together. S.4 declares that the religious character of a place of worship existing on the 15th day of August, 1947 shall continue to be the same as it existed on that day. Notably at present 20 civil suits have been filed in the Varanasi district court seeking to nullify the protection of the Mosque under the 1991 Act and remove it. The Gyanvapi mosque committee said that such litigations against the Mosque and several other mosques and dargahs across the country are being done upon a misinterpretation of the 1991 Act. "The applicant is constrained to intervene in the present proceedings as a misreading/misinterpretation of the 1991 Act, and the salutary reasons for which it had been enacted, is being sought to be diluted by filing of suits against Mosques and, even before issues are struck, seeking interim directions for survey of the Mosques or an ASI inspection." Reference was also made to how the ex-parte interim orders were granted by district courts for allowing survey of the Gyanvapi Mosque and the recent survey at Sambhal Jama Masjid Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in the Ram Janmabhumi Temple Case, the Committee placed reliance on the doctrine of non-retrogression. Under the said principle, the State has a 'non-derogable obligation' towards ensuring the country's commitment towards Secularism under the Constitution.Relevant part of the judgement reads : "The State, has by enacting the law, enforced a constitutional commitment and operationalised its constitutional obligations to uphold the equality of all religions and secularism which is a part of the basic features of the Constitution. The Places of Worship Act imposes a non-derogable obligation towards enforcing our commitment to secularism under the Indian Constitution. The law is hence a legislative instrument designed to protect the secular features of the Indian polity, which is one of the basic features of the Constitution. Non-retrogression is a foundational feature of the fundamental constitutional principles of which secularism is a core component. The Places of Worship Act is thus a legislative intervention which preserves non-retrogression as an essential feature of our secular values."The Committee, while recounting the recent violence that emerged subsequent to survey orders in Sambhal Mosque, flagged how such litigation may accelerate communal disharmony across the nation. " As seen recently in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh where a court permitted survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid by allowing an application for appointment of Survey Commissioner the very day when the suit was presented, in ex parte proceedings, the incident led to widespread violence and has claimed, as per reports, at least six citizens lives. The declaration sought by the petitioner would mean such disputes rising their head in every nook and corner of the country and ultimately obliterate the rule of law and communal harmony." AoR Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi filed the intervention application on behalf of Committee of Management, Anjuman Intezemia Masajid, Varanasi.A detailed account of disputes against Mosques and Dargahs claiming temples beneath them can be read here. Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UoI And Ors. WP(C) No. 1246/2020 and connected matters Suits Against Mosques & Dargahs Creating Communal Disharmony, Places Of Worship Must Be Applied : Justice Nariman

'Consequences Of Striking Down Places Of Worship Act Bound To Be Drastic' : Gyanvapi Mosque Committee To Supreme Court

Anmol Kaur Bawa

Tags