In a decisive move, the Supreme Court of India has refused to entertain fresh intervention applications challenging the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, leading a two-judge bench along with Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar, made it clear that the court will not allow unlimited interventions, stating, “There is a limit to interventions being filed.” This strong remark underscores the court’s reluctance to allow additional parties to enter an already contentious case that has significant legal and communal implications.
Background of the Places of Worship Act, 1991
The Places of Worship Act was enacted in 1991 by the Indian Parliament with the objective of preserving the religious character of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947, the date of India’s independence. The Act prohibits the conversion of any place of worship from one religious denomination to another and seeks to uphold communal harmony by maintaining the status quo of religious structures. It was primarily introduced to prevent further disputes over places of worship, particularly in the wake of tensions surrounding the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi issue.
One major exception to this Act is the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute, which was already under litigation when the law was passed. The Act explicitly states that it does not apply to this particular case, which was eventually resolved by the Supreme Court in 2019 when it awarded the disputed site in Ayodhya to Hindus for the construction of the Ram Temple.
Supreme Court’s Stance on the Issue
On February 17, 2025, the Supreme Court was scheduled to hear multiple pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship Act. However, due to the absence of a three-judge bench, which is required for such matters, the hearing was adjourned. During the proceedings, CJI Sanjiv Khanna expressed his discontent over the numerous intervention applications filed by various individuals and groups. He noted that there has to be a limit to the number of interventions allowed in such cases, reinforcing the court’s position that an excess of applications may unnecessarily complicate the matter.
The court has now postponed the hearing to March 2025, allowing the legal battle to continue while limiting new applications from flooding the docket.
Key Petitions and Arguments
Several intervention applications have been filed in this case, both in favor of and against the Places of Worship Act. Many of these applications have been submitted by political parties, religious organizations, and public figures, each advocating for their respective positions on the matter.
Supporters of the Act argue that the law is essential to maintaining religious harmony in the country. Among the prominent groups supporting the Act are the Indian National Congress, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, and the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind. These organizations contend that allowing challenges to the Act would open the floodgates for a series of litigations targeting mosques and other religious sites across the country. They argue that revisiting the status of religious structures based on historical claims could lead to widespread unrest and destabilization.
On the other hand, opponents of the Act claim that it unfairly restricts the rights of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs to reclaim their religious sites that were allegedly altered or destroyed in the past. Notable petitioners against the Act include BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and former Member of Parliament Chintamani Malviya. Their argument centers around the contention that the Act violates the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution, particularly the right to seek judicial remedies and the right to religious freedom.
Critics of the Act argue that the 1947 cutoff date is arbitrary and unjust, as it prevents communities from reclaiming their places of worship, even in cases where historical evidence supports their claims.
The Government’s Position
One of the key aspects of this legal battle is the stance of the central government. Despite multiple opportunities to clarify its position, the Union government has yet to submit a formal affidavit on whether it supports or opposes the Places of Worship Act. The Supreme Court has granted the government additional time to file its response, but its silence has led to speculation and criticism from various political and religious groups.
Many believe that the government’s reluctance to take a clear stand is due to the sensitive nature of the issue, which has political ramifications. Any decision to support or oppose the Act could potentially alienate certain voter groups, especially with upcoming elections on the horizon.
Implications of the Case
The Supreme Court’s decision on this matter will have far-reaching consequences for India’s legal, political, and social landscape. The Places of Worship Act was introduced with the primary objective of preserving peace and preventing communal conflicts, but its critics argue that it imposes unjust limitations on certain religious communities.
If the Supreme Court upholds the Act, it would reaffirm the government’s commitment to maintaining the status quo of religious places, preventing any further disputes from escalating. However, if the Act is struck down or amended, it could open the doors for numerous legal battles over the ownership of religious sites, potentially reigniting tensions across communities.
Regardless of the outcome, this case is a crucial test for India’s secular principles and the judiciary’s ability to balance historical grievances with contemporary legal frameworks.
Supreme Court’s Interim Order
In a related development, on December 12, 2024, the Supreme Court issued an interim order preventing lower courts from passing any orders, including those related to surveys or demolition, in cases concerning religious sites. This order effectively freezes all legal proceedings related to disputes over religious places until the Supreme Court delivers its final verdict on the Places of Worship Act.
Additionally, the court has ruled that no fresh suits should be registered regarding these matters while the case is under review. This move is seen as a way to prevent further legal complexities and ensure that the judicial process is not overwhelmed by a surge of new litigations.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to refuse new intervention applications in the Places of Worship Act case signals its intent to streamline the legal proceedings and focus on the core constitutional issues at hand. By declaring “Enough is enough,” CJI Sanjiv Khanna has sent a strong message against unnecessary legal interventions that could slow down the resolution of this significant case.
As the nation waits for the next hearing in March 2025, the debate over the Places of Worship Act remains a highly sensitive and polarizing issue. While supporters see the law as a vital safeguard for religious harmony, opponents view it as an infringement on their fundamental rights. The final verdict, whenever it arrives, will shape the country’s legal and communal dynamics for years to come.
Leave a comment