December 12th 2024.
The Supreme Court of India made a significant decision on Thursday, halting the courts in the country from considering new lawsuits and issuing any interim or final orders in ongoing cases related to the reclaiming of religious places, specifically mosques and dargahs. The Chief Justice of India-led bench stated that this action was necessary as the matter was already being examined by the Supreme Court. They also added that no new proceedings should be initiated until further notice from the court.
This order effectively puts a stop to the progress of about 18 lawsuits brought forth by various Hindu parties, who were seeking a survey to determine the original religious character of 10 mosques, including the Gyanvapi in Varanasi, the Shahi Idgah Masjid in Mathura, and the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal. These lawsuits were filed after four lives were lost in clashes in these areas.
The special bench, comprising of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan, was hearing six petitions challenging different provisions of the Places of Worship Act of 1991. This law prohibits the conversion of any place of worship and ensures that the religious character of these places, as it stood on August 15, 1947, is maintained. However, it does not apply to the dispute over the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid in Ayodhya.
There are also cross petitions that demand strict enforcement of the 1991 law to preserve the present status of mosques, which are being sought after by Hindus claiming that they were originally temples before being destroyed by invaders. The bench clarified that they would be examining the validity and scope of the 1991 law and, therefore, it was necessary to direct other courts to refrain from interfering until further orders were passed.
The bench stated that no interim or final orders, including surveys, should be passed by the courts in ongoing cases until further notice. However, Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak, representing a Hindu party, opposed this order and argued that the parties should have been heard before such a decision was made. The Chief Justice responded by saying that it was only natural to ask the courts to stay their hands as the Supreme Court was already dealing with the larger issue. He also mentioned that if the parties insisted, the matter could be transferred to a high court. The bench also questioned whether the trial courts could overrule the Supreme Court, as the apex court was already examining the validity of the law.
The court noted that it could not make a decision without hearing from the Centre and instructed the government to file their response to the pleas and counter-pleas within four weeks. It also granted another four weeks to the other parties to file their rejoinder after the Centre's response. It is noteworthy that the apex court had issued notices to all parties, including the Centre, in September 2022. The bench also appointed a nodal counsel to assist in the proceedings, which would be listed after eight weeks.
During the hearing, the bench inquired about the number of pending suits, to which an advocate replied that there were a total of 18 suits related to 10 mosques pending in various courts across the country. The bench then observed that they would eventually have to hear the arguments and that the main issue was regarding Sections 3 and 4 of the 1991 law. While Section 3 deals with the prohibition of conversion of places of worship, Section 4 pertains to the declaration of the religious character of certain places of worship and the bar on the jurisdiction of courts.
The bench also allowed the intervention of various parties, including Muslim bodies, in the proceedings. These parties were seeking to oppose the pending petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the 1991 law. The Gyanvapi Mosque management committee, in particular, listed several contentious claims made over the years regarding various mosques and dargahs, including the Shahi Idgah Masjid in Mathura, the Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque near Delhi's Qutub Minar, and the Kamal Maula Mosque in Madhya Pradesh. They argued that these petitions were filed with malicious intent to facilitate lawsuits against these religious sites, which were currently protected by the 1991 Act.
[This article has been trending online recently and has been generated with AI. Your feed is customized.]
[Generative AI is experimental.]
