The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned the hearing on multiple petitions concerning the validity and enforcement of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, to the first week of April, citing a lack of quorum. Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, who was sitting in a two-judge combination for the day, emphasised that the matter requires a three-judge bench, leading to its deferment. He expressed concern over the growing petitions and applications related to the Act.
As the proceedings began on Monday, senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for one of the petitioners, sought clarity on whether the matter would be taken up during the day’s proceedings. Responding, CJI Khanna said: “It won’t be taken today. It’s a three-judge bench matter. We are in a two-judge bench combination today.”
Jaising said that framing of issues in the case remained pending, to which the CJI replied that the task would also be undertaken by a three-judge bench. Indicating a tentative timeline, CJI Khanna remarked that the case would be heard “sometime in March”.
When a lawyer mentioned filing a new petition, CJI Khanna said: “There’s a limit to which new petitions could be admitted. We will see…” Later in the day, when the matter was called out, the bench scheduled the next hearing in the week commencing April 1. The court said that with scores of fresh pleas being filed, the docket concerning the case was becoming “unmanageable”. The bench then passed a short order clarifying that all fresh petitions in the case would stand dismissed but these petitioners would have the liberty to file applications raising new grounds in the pending matter.
Senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Dushyant Dave, MR Shamshad, among others, appeared for the parties demanding the dismissal of advocate Ashwini Upadhyay’s petition. Upadhyay filed the primary petition challenging the Act in 2020. The plea argues that the legislation discriminates against Hindu, Sikh, Jain, and Buddhist communities by freezing the religious character of places of worship as they stood on August 15, 1947, making an exception for the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya which was already in courts at the time.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta represented the Union government.
The court said there were fresh petitions and applications when it was pointed out that the government was yet to submit its affidavit in the matter. “Everyone says that they are not raising new grounds…Maybe that is why [the affidavit is yet to be filed],” said the bench.
The Act has become a focal point in legal and political debates with Hindu litigants arguing that it infringes upon fundamental rights by restricting their ability to reclaim places of worship allegedly altered during historical invasions.
Bharatiya Janata Party leaders, including Subramanian Swamy and Upadhyay, have been among the most vocal critics of the Act, advocating for its annulment.
All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen chief Asaduddin Owaisi and Muslim groups such as Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind have defended the Act. Owaisi’s petition tagged with related cases on January 2 calls for strict enforcement of the law, arguing it is essential to maintaining harmony and preserving India’s secular framework.
The Congress last month filed an application in the Supreme Court to oppose the challenges to the Act, saying it is a “cornerstone of secularism”. It accused the petitioners of attempting to undermine constitutional principles.
Rashtriya Janata Dal lawmaker Manoj Jha filed an intervention application in November, saying that the Act does not violate any fundamental rights.
On December 12, a special three-judge bench of CJI Khanna and justices Sanjay Kumar, KV Viswanathan issued an order barring all courts from entertaining fresh suits or conducting surveys to determine the religious character of places of worship. The decision came in response to escalating litigation by Hindu groups seeking surveys of mosques, including the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah Masjid in Mathura.
The directive effectively stayed proceedings in nearly 18 such lawsuits that had fuelled communal and political tensions. The Supreme Court granted the Union government four weeks to clarify its stance on the Act. The response has been pending for over two years despite growing petitions. The Supreme Court admitted pleas challenging the Act in March 2021.
With the case now deferred to March, all eyes will be on the Supreme Court’s handling of the fresh petitions and the framing of legal issues. Additionally, the Union government’s stance if it submits its response will play a crucial role in shaping the future course of litigation surrounding the 1991 Act.