Introduction:

On December 12, 2024, the Supreme Court of India issued an interim order in the case Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Others (WP(C) No. 1246/2020), addressing the growing legal disputes surrounding places of worship in the country. This case, involving multiple petitions, including one by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, challenges the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The Act prohibits changing the religious character of places of worship from their status as of August 15, 1947. Amidst rising concerns over suits targeting medieval mosques and dargahs, a special bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice KV Viswanathan intervened to prevent further registration of such suits while ordering lower courts to refrain from passing interim or final orders in pending cases.

Arguments of the Petitioners:

The petitioners argued that the 1991 Act violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. They contended that the Act undermines the right to equality (Article 14) by imposing restrictions on certain religious groups while preserving the status quo for others. The petitioners also emphasized that the Act restricts the right to freely practice, propagate, and manage religious affairs (Articles 25 and 26). Furthermore, they claimed that the Act encroaches upon the judiciary’s powers by prohibiting courts from adjudicating disputes related to the religious character of places of worship. Petitioners highlighted instances where such disputes have deep historical significance and argued that prohibiting legal recourse stifles the expression of cultural and religious identities.

Arguments of the Respondents:

The respondents, including the Union Government, defended the 1991 Act as a legislative affirmation of constitutional values promoting secularism and religious harmony. They emphasized that the Act prevents communal strife by maintaining the status quo of religious places as of 1947, thus fostering social stability. The Solicitor General, representing the Union, argued that reopening disputes concerning religious places could disrupt public order and peace. Referring to the Ayodhya judgment, the respondents stated that the principles enshrined in the Act align with the Supreme Court’s view on protecting the sanctity of existing religious practices. They also pointed out that the Act ensures the preservation of India’s diverse cultural heritage by preventing alterations to historical and religious structures.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court, while not staying proceedings in ongoing cases, issued a directive halting the registration of new suits concerning places of worship. It further restrained lower courts from passing effective interim or final orders, including those pertaining to surveys, in pending cases. The bench noted the need to ensure that civil courts do not overstep their jurisdiction or preempt the Supreme Court’s deliberations on the matter. Highlighting the importance of the Act in maintaining communal harmony, the Court emphasized that issues concerning its constitutional validity must be resolved judiciously. The bench also directed the Union Government to file its counter-affidavit within four weeks and make it publicly accessible. The Court’s decision came in the backdrop of increasing disputes over mosques and dargahs, including the controversial survey order against the 16th-century Sambhal Jama Masjid, which triggered violence in Uttar Pradesh. Advocates Kanu Agarwal, Vishnu Shankar Jain, and Ejaz Maqbool were appointed as nodal counsel to compile submissions for the Union, petitioners, and supporters of the Act, respectively. The Court underscored the need to address larger constitutional questions while maintaining interim peace and order in the country.