SC will take up Places Of Worship pleas on Dec 12

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna has formed a three-judge special bench to address a series of petitions challenging the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, a law enacted to preserve the religious character of all places of worship as they stood on August 15, 1947.

- Utkarsh Anand

The bench, headed by CJI Khanna and including justices PV Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan, will hear the consolidated cases at 3.30pm on December 12.

The formation of this bench comes at a critical time, with Hindu groups initiating legal suits across the country to survey mosques and determine whether temple structures lie beneath them. Despite the significance of the issue, the matter has seen little progress in the Supreme Court over the last two years, even as such disputes have escalated in district courts and high courts, leading to a proliferation of conflicting and politically sensitive orders.

The 1991 Act was enacted by the then Congress-led government to preserve the religious character of all places of worship as it stood on August 15, 1947. It prohibits the filing of fresh suits or legal proceedings to alter the religious status of such sites and makes it punishable to attempt to change its character. However, the Act exempted the contentious Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya, where legal proceedings were already on.

Since its enactment, the Act remained largely unchallenged for several years, facing no substantial opposition until a deluge of petitions emerged following the Supreme Court's 2019 Ayodhya judgment, which ruled in favour of the Hindu side and reignited demands to reclaim other religious sites, sparking arguments over the legislation's constitutionality.

Five such petitions contesting the validity of the Act will be taken up by the special bench on December 12. In March 2021, the court had admitted the challenge to the law and sought the Centre's stand but despite the growing number of petitions, the Union government has yet to clarify its position on the Act.