Plea challenging Places of Worship Act ‘mischievous’: AIMPLB to Supreme Court

The validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 is pending a challenge within the top court supported a petition filed by BJP leader and lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has approached the Supreme Court to become party to a petition that challenges the validity of a three-decade old law which prohibits filing lawsuits to reclaim anyplace of worship existing as on the date when Indian became independent, except ‘Ram Janmabhoomi’ at Ayodhya.

The validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 is pending a challenge within the top court supported a petition filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. The SC issued a notice on the petition on March 12 last year seeking response from the Centre after Upadhyay alleged that the law violated Article 25 (right to practice and propagate religion) and Article 26 (right to manage religious affairs) of the Constitution, besides being discriminatory to spiritual communities by barring them from approaching courts to revive their places of worship. It even questioned the Centre’s power to enact such legislation.

Terming such a petition “mischievous”, the AIMPLB moved an application last week in Upadhyay’s petition, claiming that the Act was brought by Parliament to place an end to “ancient and rancid claims” referring to places of worship, and maintain public peace, tranquility and strengthen secularism.

“To discover issues referring to conversion of places of worship is fraught with dire consequences of the breach of public order and disturbance of public tranquility and peace,” the AIMPLB application, filed through advocate MR Shamshad, read.

Referring to the communal riots that befell in Mumbai after the Babri Masjid demolition three decades ago, the appliance said, “Our country has witnessed bloodbaths after the controversy erupted in respect of Babri Masjid... Such disputes disturb the social fabric of the society by polarizing the people on the bottom of faith.”

The application quoted the Ayodhya title suit judgment decided by the apex court in November 2020, where the five-judge bench ruled, “Places of Worship Act imposes a non-derogable obligation towards enforcing our commitment to secularism under the Indian Constitution.”

The AIMLB denied there was any violation of Articles 25 or 26, or perhaps access of citizens to approach the Supreme Court, while also reminding that the petitioner is “wreaking vengeance” on the current generation of Muslims who played no part in inflicting such alleged insults on Hindus of the distant past. Upadhyay’s petition detailed attacks by past Muslim rulers who conquered India and destroyed temples.

“The present petition (by Upadhyay) seems to be mischievous in nature because it has been the stated objective of the BJP as per VInay Katiyar (BJP leader) who has been quoted to own said – temple building at Kashi and Mathura is incredibly much on our agenda... This has been the stated objective of Sangh Pariwar since 1990 and even Upadhyay’s petition admits this stated position,” the plea by the Muslim body stated.

The application brought up the recent suit filed by Hindu women seeking right to worship at the Gyanvapi mosque in Lucknow and an identical relief being sought in Mathura with reference to the Shahi Eidgah mosque. It also mentioned similar petitions seeking survey of mosques protected under the Places of Worship Act to declare them as Hindu temples.

Linking the current PIL filed by Upadhyay with the aforementioned ‘trend’, the AIMPLB said, “There appears to be a trend of filing the PIL petitions selectively targeting the problems regarding a specific minority community with intention to use the pendency of such cases to fuel hate politics on the bottom.”

The application urged the apex court to not allow such “unregulated PILs” meant for publicity stunts and sought Upadhyay’s petition to be dismissed.