The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutional validity of a provision in the Places of Worship Act, 1991. Instead, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar advised the petitioner to file an intervention application in the ongoing cases already challenging the law.
The 1991 Act prohibits filing lawsuits to reclaim religious sites or alter their status from what it was on August 15, 1947. In an interim order on December 12, 2024, a special bench led by CJI Khanna ruled that no new suits could be registered under the Act and that no final or effective orders would be passed in pending cases until further notice.
The latest petition, filed through advocate Shweta Sinha, argued that Section 4(2) of the Act is “arbitrary, irrational, and violative” of Articles 14, 21, 25, and 26 of the Constitution. It contended that the provision restricts mediation and deprives the judiciary of its power to adjudicate disputes, making it a case of “colorable legislation.”
The plea further stated that the Act was enacted under the guise of maintaining “public order,” which falls under state jurisdiction as per the Constitution (Schedule 7, List II, Entry 1). It also pointed out that “places of pilgrimage within India” is a state subject under Entry 7 of the same list, arguing that the Centre had no authority to legislate on the matter. Additionally, it claimed that the law violates Article 13(2), which prohibits the State from enacting laws that infringe upon fundamental rights.
Raising concerns about discrimination, the petition highlighted that while the Act excludes the birthplace of Lord Rama from its provisions, it includes the birthplace of Lord Krishna, even though both are revered as incarnations of Lord Vishnu. This selective approach, the plea argued, renders the law arbitrary.
In March 2021, a bench led by then CJI S.A. Bobde had sought the Centre’s response to a similar petition filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, which also challenged provisions of the Act that restrict religious site claims.
With the Supreme Court refusing to entertain the fresh PIL, attention now shifts to the pending cases where the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship Act, 1991, remains under legal scrutiny.
