The Supreme Court on October 12, 2022, granted two more weeks to the Centre to respond to a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991. The Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) UU Lalit and Justices S Ravindra Bhat, and Ajay Rastogi asked the union government to file its response by October 31. The bench posted the matter for further hearing on November 14. The apex court on September 9 had granted two weeks to the Centre to file its reply on pleas challenging the validity of certain provisions of the Act. 

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta appearing on behalf of the center in the case was asked by the bench about his personal opinion on the Act, to which he replied that it, may not be covered by the opinion of its five-judge Constitution bench in the Sri Rama Janmabhoomi case.

Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing on behalf of the petitioners challenging the Act submitted in his statement that certain additional questions have been framed, which were not considered by the Supreme Court in the Sri Rama Janmabhoomi judgment, which upheld the Places of Worship Act. Advocate Vrinda Grover, representing Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, said that they will file a response once the Centre files its affidavit.

Earlier, on November 9, 2019, while delivering its judgment in the Sri Ramjanmabhoomi case, the apex court observed: 

In providing a guarantee for the preservation of the religious character of places of public worship as they existed on 15 August 1947 and against the conversion of places of public worship, Parliament determined that independence from colonial rule furnishes a constitutional basis for healing the injustices of the past by providing the confidence to every religious community that their places of worship will be preserved and that their character will not be altered.

 

The law addresses itself to the State as much as to every citizen of the nation…The State, has by enacting the law, enforced a constitutional commitment and operationalised its constitutional obligations to uphold the equality of all religions and secularism which is a part of the basic features of the Constitution. The Places of Worship Act imposes a non-derogable obligation towards enforcing our commitment to secularism under the Indian Constitution. The law is hence a legislative instrument designed to protect the secular features of the Indian polity, which is one of the basic features of the Constitution…The Places of Worship Act is…a legislative intervention which preserves non-retrogression as an essential feature of our secular values.

The Places of Worship Act declares that the character of a place of worship as on August 15, 1947, shall be maintained and no suit or proceeding shall lie in any court in respect of any dispute against the encroachment of any religious properties at any point of time before this date. The Act also says that any such pending proceeding shall stand abated. If any proceeding filed on the ground that conversion of religious place has taken place after that date and before September 18, 1991, when the Act was made by the Parliament, shall be disposed of to maintain the status as was existing on August 15, 1947.

While the Islamic side supports the Act, claiming that the 2019 judgment of the Supreme Court already recognized its purpose, the Hindu side says that the Act itself was not under challenge in the Ayodhya case and therefore the comments were not made after examining its constitutional validity. One of the petitioners in the case, Ashwini Upadhyay submitted that the Act allows illegal acts of Islamic invaders to continue for perpetuity by barring legal remedies to Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs. The petition argues that the Act violates the principle of secularism. The petition submitted in the Court alleging the Act states: 

The result is that Hindu devotees cannot raise their grievance by instituting any suit in Civil Court or invoking the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against high handiness of ultras and will not be able to restore back the religious character of Hindu Endowments, Temples, Mutts, etc from hoodlums if they had encroached upon such property before 15th August 1947 and such illegal and barbarian act will continue in perpetuity. 

Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind later moved the Supreme Court seeking impleadment in the plea, contending it was apparent that the petition sought to indirectly target Islamic places of worship. The apex court allowed this impleadment application.