The Supreme Court on Monday voiced its frustration over the influx of new pleas concerning the validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which mandates that the religious character of places of worship be maintained as it was on August 15, 1947. The bench, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, hinted at a possible delay in addressing these petitions due to the volume and questioned the necessity of the frequent filings.
During the session, Chief Justice Khanna expressed concerns about the manageability of the court’s schedule given the number of interim applications (IAs) filed. “There is a limit to which petitions can be filed… we might not be able to take it up,” he remarked, suggesting that some petitions might be deferred to March.
The Act in question has been a focal point of contention, particularly among Hindu groups seeking to verify the original religious status of places like the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi, the Shahi Idgah Masjid in Mathura, and the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal, where tensions have recently escalated. In December 2024, the Court had stalled proceedings on approximately 18 lawsuits from various Hindu parties calling for surveys of these sites.
Several political figures, including AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi and Samajwadi Party MP Iqra Choudhary, have submitted petitions urging for the Act’s strict enforcement to uphold communal harmony and protect the secular ethos of India. These filings argue against the increasing legal challenges aimed at mosques and dargahs, which they claim pose risks to societal peace.
Meanwhile, the Akhil Bhartiya Sant Samiti, a Hindu organization, seeks to intervene in the ongoing legal debates surrounding the Act’s provisions. On the opposite spectrum, Muslim organizations like the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind advocate for rigorous enforcement of the Act to preserve the current status of mosques, which they assert are under threat due to historical claims of being former temples.
At the heart of these legal battles are Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the 1991 Act, with disputes particularly focused on the provisions barring the conversion of places of worship and restricting judicial intervention in such matters.
