{"id":193488,"date":"2024-12-12T04:15:48","date_gmt":"2024-12-12T04:15:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/2024\/12\/12\/supreme-court-to-hear-pleas-challenging-places-of-worship-act-1991-today\/"},"modified":"2024-12-12T04:15:48","modified_gmt":"2024-12-12T04:15:48","slug":"supreme-court-to-hear-pleas-challenging-places-of-worship-act-1991-today","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/2024\/12\/12\/supreme-court-to-hear-pleas-challenging-places-of-worship-act-1991-today\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court to hear pleas challenging Places of Worship Act-1991 today"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Supreme<\/div>\n
The Supreme Court is set to hear a series of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) today, challenging the validity of specific sections of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. This law prohibits filing lawsuits to reclaim or alter the character of places of worship as they stood on August 15, 1947. The matter will be taken up by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and K V Viswanathan.<\/p>\n

What the Pleas Contend<\/h2>\n

One of the key petitions, filed by Ashwini Upadhyay<\/a>, seeks to invalidate sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Act, arguing that these provisions deny individuals and religious groups the right to judicial remedies to reclaim places of worship. Similarly, former Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy<\/a> has requested the court to \u201cread down\u201d certain provisions to allow Hindus to stake claims over disputed sites like the Gyanvapi Mosque<\/a> in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah Mosque<\/a> in Mathura.<\/p>\n

Upadhyay, however, opposes this approach, stating, “The entire statute is unconstitutional, and no question of reading down arises.”<\/p>\n

Defending the Act
<\/h2>\n

Opposing the petitions, the Communist Party of India<\/a> (Marxist) and Maharashtra MLA Jitendra Satish Awhad argue that the Act is essential for maintaining public order, unity, fraternity, and secularism in the country. Meanwhile, the Muslim side in ongoing disputes, including the Gyanvapi Mosque and Shahi Idgah Mosque cases, has invoked the 1991 law to counter the claims, asserting that such suits are inadmissible under the Act.<\/p>\n

The Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind<\/a> has also cited the five-judge Constitution bench ruling in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case to support the Act, emphasizing its significance in upholding the principles of the Constitution.<\/p>\n


Also Read: Delhi residents, stock up! Water supply to be disrupted…<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Historical Context and Legal Provisions<\/h2>\n

The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, prohibits converting any place of worship and mandates maintaining their religious character as it was on August 15, 1947. It includes provisions to address issues connected to or incidental to this purpose. However, the Act exempts the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute in Ayodhya.Petitions challenging the Act have criticized the “arbitrary and irrational retrospective cut-off date” of August 15, 1947, arguing that it protects encroachments by “fundamentalist-barbaric invaders and law-breakers.”<\/p>\n

Centre\u2019s Response and Future Implications<\/h2>\n

On March 12, 2022, the Supreme Court sought a response from the central government to Upadhyay\u2019s plea. The hearings today come against the backdrop of several legal battles over disputed religious sites, with the court set to weigh the constitutionality of a law that has significant implications for communal harmony and the secular fabric of India.<\/p>\n

Inputs from PTI<\/em>
<\/p>\n<\/div>\n


\n
Source link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Supreme Court is set to hear a series of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) today, challenging the validity of specific sections of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. This law prohibits filing lawsuits to reclaim or alter the character of places of worship as they stood on August 15, 1947. The matter will […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":193489,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"tdm_status":"","tdm_grid_status":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/img.etimg.com\/photo\/msid-116233769,imgsize-1720974.cms","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[602],"tags":[151620,148861,6877,9732,151619,1625,21345,1626,108887,5909,46340,151618,1627,91511,113253,1624,4749,1603,5562],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/193488"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=193488"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/193488\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":193490,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/193488\/revisions\/193490"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/193489"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=193488"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=193488"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=193488"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}