Congress’s KC Venugopal Moves Supreme Court to Defend Places of Worship Act

Congress KC Venugopal Moves Supreme Court: The Congress has moved an application in the Supreme Court challenging petitions against the constitutionality of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, and the Act is part of the core of India’s secular design while the challenges are allegedly malicious attempts to foil established principles of secularism.

An application for intervention, moved by Congress general secretary KC Venugopal, pointed out that this Act was representative of the will of the Indian people, as it was enacted when the government was led by Congress along with the Janata Dal. The party stated that this law was included in their election manifesto and showed its sincerity in maintaining communal peace in the country.

Also Read: NASA Shares Stunning Photo of Sandhill Crane with ‘Large, Brown Eyes’ – What Makes This Bird Special?

The application of the Congress was in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, a BJP leader, challenging the validity of the Act. Upadhyay has alleged that the Act discriminates against the Hindu, Sikh, Jain, and Buddhist communities, as it has frozen the religious character of places of worship as on August 15, 1947, except for the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya.

Nevertheless, the application by Congress later noted that in 1991, the Act was vital for communal harmony and for safeguarding secularism in India. The law protected religious character of places of worship that existed at the closure of that date and prevented the rekindling of historical disputes, it claimed.

“The present challenge is not only legally baseless but also appears to have been instituted with questionable motives,” the party contended, adding this law can be amended only at the risk of threatening the communal harmony and secular fabric of the country and, in fact, the very sovereignty and integrity of the nation.

It was pointed out by Congress that the Act was very much recognised by the Supreme Court, and in its verdict of 2019 on Ayodhya, it was noted that the Act is one of the strong shields for secularism and reflects the constitutional values.

AAP denied the allegations that the law discriminated against Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists exempting other religions, stating that it is made to maintain the status quo and check the religious sites disputes from escalating.

The Act of 1991 has come to be a pivot in the ongoing legal and political tussle. Multiple Hindu litigants have argued that it curtails the fundamental rights of some religious groups, prominently Hindus, to reclaim places of worship allegedly demolished during the historical invasions. The prominent challenges were put forth by BJP leaders including Subramanian Swamy and Upadhyay.

In contrast, AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi and Muslim organisations such as the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind supported the Act and argued in favour of it, urging the court to retain its provisions in order to prevent communal discord and preserve the secular fabric of the Constitution.

Owaisi’s petition, on January 2 tagged with several other cases by the Supreme Court, seeks strict implementation of the Act and again highlights the necessity of its provisions aiming at securing injunction against changes in the religious character of places of worship. The top court has set a hearing date on all the petitions for February 17 before a bench led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna.

Also Read: Joe Biden Warns of ‘Dangerous Oligarchy’ and ‘Extreme Wealth’ in Farewell Speech

In November, Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Jha had filed an intervention application in the top court, claiming that the 1991 Act “does not violate any fundamental rights” under the Constitution.

On December 12, on a special bench involving justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan, it restrained all courts in the country from entertaining fresh suits or ordering surveys to determine the religious character of places of worship. The order came at a time when Hindu groups were escalating litigation demanding surveys of mosques, including that of the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah Masjid in Mathura. The prohibition was placed on proceeding in about 18 such cases which had ignited communal and political tension.

On the same day, the court also gave the Union the chance to respond on the Act within a span of four weeks, more than two years after the petitions started pouring in. While the Supreme Court has been hearing petitions against the Act-in-March, 2021, the Centre still refrains from responding in essentially clear terms.

Also Read: Saif Ali Khan Knife Attack: Suspect Caught on CCTV, First Video Surfaces