Supreme Court
There will be a hearing in the Supreme Court today (Thursday) on the Places of Worship Act. The petition challenges the constitutional validity of the bill. The case will be heard by a three-judge bench including Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna. The relevant law states that the religious character of places of worship existing on August 15, 1947 will be the same as on that day. It prohibits proceedings to recover any religious site or to change its character.
The Supreme Court is hearing several petitions in this regard, one of which is filed by Ashwini Upadhyay. He demanded the repeal of Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. One of the arguments raised in the petition is that the provisions deprive any individual or religious group of the right to seek judicial redress to recover a place of worship.
What argument is given?
The Marxist Communist Party and Maharashtra MLA Jitendra Satish Awhad also took action against several pending petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship Act, 1991 The petition was filed saying the law poses a threat to the protection of public order, brotherhood, unity and secularism. The country has.
The case will be heard in the backdrop of cases filed in multiple courts, including those related to the Jawapi Masjid in Varanasi, the Shahi Idgha Masjid in Mathura and the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal. In these cases, there are claims that the sites were built after the destruction of ancient temples and demands that Hindus be allowed to worship there.
In most of these cases, the Muslim side cited the 1991 law and considered such cases unacceptable. Six petitions have been filed against the provisions of the law, including one filed by former Lok Sabha member Subramanian Swamy. While Swamy wants the Supreme Court to reinterpret certain provisions to enable Hindus to file claims against the Jawapi Masjid in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgha Masjid in Mathura, Upadhyay claimed that the entire law is inconsistent with The Constitution must be reconsidered. An explanation emerges.
