'Essential To Protect Communal Harmony' : Congress Approaches Supreme Court Supporting Places Of Worship Act

The Indian National Congress has filed an intervention opposing the ongoing challenge to the Places of Worship Act 1991 (PoWA) in the Supreme Court.In its intervention application, the INC has expressed concerns over the motive behind the present challenge as a 'a motivated and malicious attempt to undermine established principles of secularism'. Congress stressed that the Act is "essential to safeguard secularism in India"The INC defended the PoWA stating it to be a reflection of the secular ethos of the Country and was brought into force with the support of the popular mandate of the people. The party asserted that the Act is essential to protect communal harmony."At the time of the passing of the POWA, it was the Applicant along with the Janata Dal party that were in the majority in the legislature for the 10th Lok Sabha. The Applicant humbly submits that the POWA was enacted by the Parliament , as it reflected the mandate of the Indian populace. In fact, the POWA had been envisaged prior to the year 1991 and the same was made a part of the Applicant's then Election Manifesto for the Parliamentary elections." The main contentions raised by the INC in the plea are (1) INC be allowed to intervene and defend in the ongoing challenge, as its representatives had brought the impugned Act into motion; (2) the assertion that PoWA is violative of the right to freedom of religion under Article 25 is incorrect and the Apex Court in the Ayodhya Verdict clearly stated that the Act is 'intrinsically related to the obligations of a secular State'; (3) Since PoWA upholds the fundamental rights under Articles 25, 26, 27, 28 of the Constitution, the Parliament was not barred from enacting the statute; (4) The assertion that PoWA is only applicable to Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists erroneous as it is equally applicable to all religious communities and ascertains and affixes their nature as on 15.08.1947. The plea highlights : "In fact, Section 2(c) of the POWA categorically defines “place of worship” as “a temple, mosque, gurdwara, church, monastery or any other place of public religious worship of any religious denomination or any section thereof, by whatever name called”. Therefore, it is submitted that the Petitioner's claim that preferential and discriminatory treatment is accorded towards particular communities is without any merit." The application also refutes the petitioner's claim that the subject matter of the Statute falls under State Jurisdiction under List II under Article 246 as its content relates to 'pilgrimage' (List II Entry 7). It states that PoWA expressly deals with "the protection of the character of places of worship as they stood on 15.08.1947". Thus, INC submits that the "Parliament had complete authority and legitimacy to enact the POWA, as the pith and substance of the POWA falls squarely under Entry 28 of List III of the 7th Schedule under the head “Charities and charitable institutions, charitable and religious endowments and religious institutions”. Notably, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan on December 12 passed a significant order halting fresh suits and survey orders against religious places. The Court also ordered that in pending suits (such as those concerning Gyanvapi mosque, Mathura Shahi Idgah, Sambhal Jama Masjid etc.), the Courts should not pass effective interim or final orders, including orders for survey. The interim order was passed while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 and also a petition seeking the implementation of the Act.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 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...

'Essential To Protect Communal Harmony' : Congress Approaches Supreme Court Supporting Places Of Worship Act

Anmol Kaur Bawa

Tags