New Delhi: Days before a crucial hearing in the Supreme Court on pleas challenging the validity of the Places of Worship Act, 1991, the Communist Party of India-Marxist has filed an intervention application, saying that the law is crucial for maintaining communal harmony and preventing conflicts that may arise from historical disputes.
The application said that the law, prohibiting the alteration of religious places of worship as they stood on August 15, 1945, prevents historical wrongs from being addressed and safeguards the country against religious strife to ensure adherence to constitutional morality.
“This Act, enacted in 1991, ensures that governance is forward-looking and not anchored in revisiting historical grievances,” the application stated.
It added that in the three succeeding decades, there has been no effort to amend or abrogate the 1991 Act and the clutch of petitions challenging the validity of the statute is “an indirect attempt to amend or abrogate the Act through judicial means where Parliamentary intention appears to be the contrary”.
Further, it said that “the challenge to Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Act is untenable in light of the Doctrine of Laches. The Petitioner has claimed a violation of his rights by the Act after an inordinate delay of over three decades after its enactment”. The Doctrine of Laches is a legal principle disallowing a claim because it has been brought to court after an unreasonable lapse of time
The application said that the purported grievances of the petitioner concerning actions of ancient rulers cannot be adjudicated by the Supreme Court nor do they constitute a valid basis to challenge the constitutionality of the Act.
It added that a petition under Article 32 assailing a legislative enactment must demonstrate the alleged unconstitutionality of its provisions grounded in established constitutional principles.
“The filing of suits challenging the nature of Mosques and Dargahs is a direct attack on the pluralistic lifestyle that has been witnessed for generations and is a gross attempt at writing off the hard work of the nation’s forefathers in ensuring that independent India remained an everlasting mixture of cultures, races, religions and languages,” the application said.
The CPI-M’s politburo, in a statement issued on Monday, demanded the immediate intervention of the Supreme Court to uphold the Places of Worship Act to put an end to litigations being filed and entertained in lower courts claiming that there were temples where centuries-old mosques exist today.
It pointed out that after Varanasi and Mathura, in Sambhal, a survey was ordered of a 16th-century mosque by a lower court. “This resulted in violence in which four Muslim youths have been killed. Following this, a similar petition has been entertained in the civil court in Ajmer regarding the Ajmer Sharif Dargah,” it read, saying that that it was most unfortunate that the Supreme Court has not intervened to put a stop to such litigation by upholding the said Act.
“The 2019 five-member Bench judgment of the Supreme Court on the Ayodhya dispute had categorically upheld the validity of the law and its enforcement. Given this direction, it is incumbent on the apex court to intervene to put a stop to legal proceedings, which are violative of the Act,” the politburo statement read.
Recently, the Supreme Court has notified a 3-judge Special Bench to hear a clutch of petitions challenging the validity of certain provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.
As per the causelist published on the website of the apex court, a special bench headed by CJI Sanjiv Khanna and comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Vishwanathan will hear the matter on December 12.
A similar application has been moved by the Managing Committee of Varanasi’s Gyanvapi Mosque before the top court, saying that the consequences of declaring the 1991 Act unconstitutional are bound to be drastic and will obliterate the rule of law and communal harmony.
The mosque committee said that an Article 32 petition challenging a legislative enactment must indicate the unconstitutionality of the provisions based on constitutional principles and the rhetorical arguments seeking a sort of retribution against the perceived acts of previous rulers cannot be made the basis for a constitutional challenge.
“The Parliament, in its wisdom, enacted the legislation as a recognition of secular values of the Constitution. The applicant humbly submits that while this Hon’ble Court considers this challenge to the 1991 Act, the petition may be dismissed as being devoid of merits,” the application had added.
(IANS)
