Supreme Court issues stay on suits on survey against religious places Interventions had highlighted the Act's intent to preserve India’s secular character
13, Dec 2024 | CJP Team
In a significant order, the Supreme Court of India on December 12 imposed a stay on all new and pending suits concerning the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. This crucial direction prevents any escalation of communal tensions while the constitutional validity of the Act is under scrutiny. The court categorically stated: “Though fresh suits may be filed, no suits would be registered and no proceedings shall be undertaken therein till further orders of this Court.” Furthermore, regarding ongoing cases, the court ordered: “No Court will pass any effective interim orders or final orders, including orders directing surveys, etc., till the next date of hearing/further orders of this Court.”
This stay effectively halts any judicial action that could disturb public harmony or prejudice the resolution of the issues at hand. By freezing all proceedings, the court has ensured that the sensitive subject of religious places is dealt with calmly and with the utmost judicial oversight.
The order also addressed the delays in filing responses by the Union of India, noting that despite the issuance of notice as early as September 9, 2022, no counter affidavit or reply had been submitted. The court directed the Union to file its reply “within four weeks from today,” emphasising the need for timely compliance. The court also directed for the copies of the reply are to be served to all petitioners and respondents, who may file their rejoinders within four weeks of receiving it.
To facilitate the coordination of documents and arguments in this multi-party case, the court appointed Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain as Nodal Counsel for those challenging the validity of the Act and Mr. Ejaz Maqbool for those supporting its enforcement or opposing the challenges. Additionally, Mr. Kanu Agarwal was designated as the Nodal Counsel for the Union of India, responsible for creating and maintaining a Google Drive link to upload the Union’s affidavit, which will be shared with all relevant parties. The court also established a shared email ID to streamline the exchange of pleadings, directing, “All the Nodal Counsel will have access to the said email ID to facilitate coordination.”
The court’s order reiterated its earlier framing of legal questions on October 12, 2022 regarding the scope and application of Sections 3 and 4 of the 1991 Act, which prohibit the alteration of religious character and nullify ongoing legal challenges to the status of places of worship as they stood on 15 August 1947. It noted that additional issues have arisen during the hearings and that the primary questions relate to “the contours, as well as the width and expanse of the said provisions.” The case is now scheduled to be heard next on February 17, 2025.
This order marks a decisive moment in the legal proceedings, as the Supreme Court’s stay prevents any disruptive developments while maintaining a controlled and coordinated process for addressing the constitutional challenge to the 1991 Act. It underscores the court’s commitment to safeguarding communal harmony and judicial decorum in one of the most sensitive and significant cases of our time.
(Detailed report on the judicial proceedings of December 12, 2024 can be read here.)
The complete order may be read below:
Intervention applications reflect broad stakeholder interest
Notably, recently, more intervention applications in the matter have also been filed by various prominent parties and individuals, reflecting the broad interest and stakes involved in the litigation. These include the Gyanvapi Mosque Managing Committee, Maharashtra MLA Dr. Jitendra Satish Awhad from the Nationalist Congress Party (Socialist), the Communist Party of India (Marxist), represented by Mr. Prakash Karat, Member of the Politburo, the Mathura Shahi Idgah Masjid Committee, and Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Jha. These interventions highlight the diverse perspectives and communal sensitivities surrounding the constitutional challenge to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, underscoring its far-reaching social and political implications. These interventions highlight the diverse perspectives and communal sensitivities surrounding the constitutional challenge to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, underscoring its far-reaching social and political implications.
1. Gyanvapi Mosque Managing Committee’s intervention
The Gyanvapi Mosque Managing Committee had filed an intervention before the Supreme Court, asserting its critical stake in the legal deliberations concerning the 1991 Act. The committee argued that multiple suits have been filed seeking the mosque’s removal, despite the clear bar imposed by Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, which preserve the religious character of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947.
Highlighting the far-reaching implications of declaring the Act unconstitutional, the committee stated that such a decision would have “drastic” consequences. It expressed concern that the Act’s misinterpretation had already led to legal challenges against several mosques and dargahs across the country, including the Gyanvapi Mosque. As per the report of LiveLaw, the committee emphasised: “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.”
The application referenced recent instances where ex-parte interim orders were issued by district courts, including orders allowing a survey of the Gyanvapi Mosque and the Sambhal Jama Masjid, as examples of how the 1991 Act is being undermined. (The detailed report on Sambhal violence may be read here, here and here.)
Additionally, the committee invoked the doctrine of non-retrogression, which the Supreme Court had discussed in the Ram Janmabhoomi Temple Case. It argued that under this principle, the State has a “non-derogable obligation” to uphold the country’s commitment to secularism as enshrined in the Constitution. The committee emphasised that any weakening of the 1991 Act would represent a step backward in protecting the secular fabric of the nation.
2. Indian Union Muslim League’s intervention
The Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), represented by its General Secretary and Kerala MLA PK Kunhalikutty along with Lok Sabha MP ET Muhammed Basheer, had filed an intervention application before the Supreme Court in the ongoing challenges to the validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The IUML’s intervention underscores the importance of the Act in safeguarding secularism and religious freedoms for all faiths in India. The application emphasises that secularism has been recognised as a part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution, thus rendering the Act immune from any amendments by Parliament.
The IUML’s application, as per LiveLaw, highlights the Act’s dual purposes, both of which are crucial for preserving public order and harmony. Firstly, the Act prohibits the conversion of any place of worship, ensuring that the religious character of such places is not altered. Secondly, the Act imposes a positive obligation on the State to maintain the religious character of every place of worship as it stood on August 15, 1947, the date when India became an independent, democratic, and secular nation. The application underscores that this date is pivotal, marking the emergence of India as a modern State with no official religion and providing equal rights to all religious denominations. As the application states: “This August 15, 1947 is crucial because on that date this nation was emerged as a modern, democratic and sovereign State thrusting back such barbarity into the past once and for all.”
Further, the IUML stresses that the 1991 Act is instrumental in fostering unity, peace, and mutual respect among India’s diverse religious communities. The application also draws attention to recent incidents in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, as a stark reminder of the need for such legislation. The IUML contends that if the Act had been properly enforced, incidents like the one in Sambhal, which resulted in the tragic loss of six lives, could have been prevented. The increasing number of suits concerning places of worship, the IUML argues, is exactly the type of issue the 1991 Act was designed to address. As they assert, “The mushrooming of suits concerning places of worship is precisely the mischief sought to be curtailed by the introduction of this impugned Act.”
Through its intervention, the IUML advocates for the continued preservation of the Act, highlighting its critical role in maintaining communal harmony and upholding the secular values enshrined in India’s Constitution.
3. Dr. Jitendra Satish Awhad’s Intervention
Dr. Jitendra Satish Awhad, a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) from Mumbra-Kalwa and a representative of the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), had filed an intervention in the Supreme Court proceedings challenging the 1991 Act. Awhad’s application underscored the Act’s crucial role in preserving secularism, promoting communal harmony, and preventing the tensions that could disrupt national unity.
Drawing from the historical context of his constituency, Awhad highlighted that Mumbra-Kalwa became a refuge for those displaced by the 1992-93 Bombay riots, which had caused significant social and physical divides between communities. Over time, efforts have been made to rebuild trust and unity among the diverse communities in the region. Awhad warned that any dilution of the 1991 Act could jeopardise these efforts, potentially unravelling the progress made in fostering peace.
Awhad’s intervention further stresses the historical importance of the Act, especially in the immediate aftermath of India’s independence when the country faced significant religious and communal strife. He noted that the Act reflects Parliament’s considered response to these concerns, aiming to stabilise the nation and promote cohesion by preventing disputes over religious sites that could destabilise public order and communal harmony. As per LiveLaw, his application states that “There exists a clear and reasonable nexus between the Act’s prohibition on altering the religious character of places of worship and its overarching objective of fostering national unity and integrity.”
Awhad’s application has been filed through AoR Anas Tanwir and is drawn by Advocates Neha Singh and Ebad Ur Rahman. Additionally, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) has also intervened in the case, supporting the constitutionality of the Act and its role in safeguarding India’s secular fabric.
4. Communist Party of India (Marxist) intervention
The Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)), represented by Mr. Prakash Karat, Member of the Politburo, had filed an Intervention Application before the Supreme Court. The CPI(M) strongly advocates for the Act’s critical role in preserving India’s secular fabric by preventing any alteration to the religious character of places of worship as they stood on August 15, 1947. This prohibition is central to ensuring the communal harmony and national cohesion that the Act was designed to uphold.
In its application, the CPI(M) underscores the Act’s importance in preventing conflicts rooted in historical disputes, arguing that its legislative intent is crucial in maintaining peace and preventing further strife. The party also emphasises that the Act safeguards the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), 21 (right to life and liberty), and 25 (freedom of religion) of the Indian Constitution, ensuring equality, non-discrimination, and the freedom of all citizens to practice their religion without fear of interference or alteration.
The CPI(M) further warns that any attempt to repeal or alter the Act would undermine these constitutional principles, posing a threat to secularism and the rule of law, both of which are foundational to India’s democratic framework. The application highlights the growing number of litigations challenging the religious character of various places of worship, including mosques and dargahs. Referring specifically to recent cases involving the Sambhal Mosque and the Ajmer Dargah, the CPI(M) asserts that such cases “intend to destabilise the legislative intent and constitutional mandate enshrined in the Act,” warning that this “relentless wave of litigation” threatens to erode India’s secular values.
5. Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Jha’s intervention
Manoj Kumar Jha, a Member of Rajya Sabha representing the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), had also moved an intervention application before the Supreme Court. In his submission, Jha argues that the 1991 Act is fully aligned with the Indian Constitution and promotes its core values, especially the commitment to secularism and equality for all religions.
The application, filed through Advocate-on-Record Fauzia Shakil, asserts that the Act does not contravene any fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution. Instead, it strengthens the constitutional tenets by protecting the religious character of places of worship as they existed on 15 August 1947. Jha emphasises that the Act serves as a legislative guarantee, ensuring that these places of worship are preserved by the State, in line with the nation’s secular commitments.
As Jha’s application states, the 1991 Act is critical to upholding the Preamble of the Constitution and Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), 25 (freedom of religion), 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs), and 51A (fundamental duties). It underscores the secular obligations of the State and India’s pledge to treat all religions equally, reaffirming the Act’s constitutional validity. According to the report of LiveLaw, the application asserts, “There is no need for the top Court to intervene or ground to declare the Act unconstitutional,” stressing that the legislation is essential for maintaining national unity and preserving the secular fabric of the country.
In his application, Jha also draws attention to the rise of sectarian politics, which has intensified in recent times. He warns that the increasing weaponisation of religion and the polarisation of communities pose significant threats to constitutional values. He adds, “The recent incidents of weaponising religion, polarising communities and fostering a divisive agenda is creating repercussions where dissent and diversity face increasing threats,” thus reinforcing the need for the 1991 Act to prevent such divisiveness and preserve India’s secular ideals.
Related:
When and How Ram Vilas Paswan made a strong pitch for the Places of Worship Act, 1991
“Temple restoration” suits on the rise; what about the Places of Worship Act?
