New Delhi: The PIL challenging the Places of Worship Act, 1991 will be heard in the country’s Supreme Court today. The Supreme Court constituted a special court for this hearing. The bench comprised Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Vishwanath.
what the law says
The relevant law states that the religious character of a place of worship existing on August 15, 1947 will be the same as on that day. It bars lawsuits to reclaim religious sites or change their character. The Supreme Court is hearing several petitions in this regard, one of which is filed by Ashwini Upadhyay. Upadhyay demanded the repeal of Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Places of Religion (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.
Deprivation of the right to judicial relief
One of the arguments raised in the petition is that the provisions deprive individuals or religious groups of their right to seek judicial remedies to recover places of worship. Marxist Communist Party and Maharashtra MLA Jitendra Satish Awhad also filed a petition against several pending petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Religion (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, saying This law poses a threat to public order, fraternity, solidarity and protection. Secularism.
The case will be heard against the backdrop of multiple lawsuits filed in various courts, including those related to the Gianwapi Masjid in Varanasi, the Shahi Iga Masjid in Mathura and the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal litigation. 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.
Muslim arguments
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 It is constitutional and must be reconsidered. Explain the problem. (input language)
india latest news
