The Supreme Court on Monday postponed the hearing on multiple petitions challenging the validity and enforcement of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, to the first week of April, citing a lack of quorum. Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, presiding over a two-judge bench, emphasized that the case requires a three-judge bench, leading to its adjournment. He also noted the increasing number of petitions related to the Act.
At the start of the proceedings, senior advocate Indira Jaising, representing one of the petitioners, sought clarification on whether the matter would be addressed that day. CJI Khanna responded, “It won’t be taken today. It’s a three-judge bench matter. We are in a two-judge bench today.”
Jaising pointed out that the framing of issues in the case was still pending, to which CJI Khanna stated that this task would also be undertaken by a three-judge bench. Tentatively, he suggested that the case would be heard “sometime in March.”
When a lawyer mentioned filing a new petition, CJI Khanna remarked, “There’s a limit to how many new petitions can be admitted. We will see…” Later in the day, the court scheduled the next hearing for the week of April 1, citing the growing number of petitions making the case “unmanageable.” The bench clarified that all fresh petitions would be dismissed, but petitioners could file applications raising new grounds in the ongoing case.
Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Dushyant Dave, and MR Shamshad appeared for parties opposing advocate Ashwini Upadhyay’s petition. Upadhyay had originally challenged the Act in 2020, arguing that it discriminates against Hindu, Sikh, Jain, and Buddhist communities by freezing the religious character of places of worship as they stood on August 15, 1947, except for the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya, which was already under litigation at the time. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Union government.
When it was pointed out that the government had yet to submit its affidavit, the court noted, “Everyone says they are not raising new grounds… Maybe that is why [the affidavit is yet to be filed].”
The 1991 Act has become a contentious issue in both legal and political debates. Hindu litigants argue that it violates fundamental rights by restricting their ability to reclaim places of worship allegedly altered during historical invasions. BJP leaders, including Subramanian Swamy and Ashwini Upadhyay, have been vocal critics, calling for its repeal. In contrast, AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi and Muslim groups like Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind have defended the Act, arguing that it is essential for maintaining communal harmony and India’s secular fabric.
In January, Owaisi filed a petition advocating for the strict enforcement of the Act. The Congress, in a recent application, opposed challenges to the Act, describing it as a “cornerstone of secularism” and accusing petitioners of attempting to undermine constitutional principles. In November, RJD lawmaker Manoj Jha filed an intervention application, asserting that the Act does not violate fundamental rights.
On December 12, a special three-judge bench, led by CJI Khanna, along with Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan, issued an order barring lower courts from entertaining fresh lawsuits or conducting religious character surveys of places of worship. This ruling came amid increasing litigation by Hindu groups seeking surveys of mosques such as the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah Masjid in Mathura. The Supreme Court’s directive effectively halted proceedings in nearly 18 cases, which had sparked communal and political tensions.
The Union government was granted four weeks to clarify its stance on the Act, but its response has been pending for over two years, even as petitions continue to grow. The Supreme Court admitted pleas challenging the Act in March 2021.
With the case now deferred to March, attention will focus on how the Supreme Court frames the legal issues and whether the Union government finally submits its response, which could significantly impact the future of the 1991 Act and the broader legal battle over places of worship in India.
