PLACES OF WORSHIP ACT CASE ANALYSIS: ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY VS. UNION OF INDIA

PLACES OF WORSHIP ACT CASE DETAILS:

Case Number: WP(C) No. 1246/2020

Name: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs. Union of India 

Parties: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay [Petitioner] Union of India [Respondent]

Status: Pending

Last Hearing: 12/12/2024

Link for the Order dated 12/12/2024:

https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/23509/23509_2020_1_301_57937_Order_12-Dec-2024.pdf

Next Hearing: 17/02/2025 

Bench: 3-Judge Bench comprising of CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justice P.Y. Sanjay Kumar, and Justice K.V. Viswanathan

INTRODUCTION

The case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs. Union of India, has emerged as one of the most significant constitutional challenges in the contemporary sphere, questioning the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. Filed in 2020, the petition not only raises critical legal issues but also delves into the delicate balance between historical grievances, religious harmony, and constitutional principles such as secularism, equality, and justice. This case has brought to light the ongoing debates surrounding the preservation of religious sites and judicial remedies for historical wrongs, making it a landmark legal dispute.

The impugned Act was enacted to maintain the status quo of religious places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947. It prohibits the conversion of such places and bars courts from entertaining disputes regarding their religious character. However, the petitioner, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, argues that this law violates fundamental constitutional rights and seeks its annulment. The Supreme Court’s proceedings and its eventual decisions will have a profound impact on India’s social, historical and Legal Framework.

BACKGROUND & FACTS

The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 was introduced during a politically charged period in Indian history when the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid dispute was at its peak. The Act aims to preserve the religious character of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947, the day India attained independence. Its key provisions Include:

1. Section 3: Prohibits the conversion of a place of worship from one religious denomination to another.
2. Section 4(1): Mandates the maintenance of the religious character of all places of worship as of August 15, 1947.Section
3. 4(2): Bars courts from entertaining suits or proceedings concerning the religious character of places of worship.
4. Section 5: Provides for exemptions to the Ayodhya Dispute from the ambit of the Act.

The petitioner, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, a lawyer and a political activist, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, challenging the validity of the Act. Upadhyay contends that the Act violates fundamental rights, including Article 14 (Equality before Law and Equal Protection of Law), Article 25 (Right to Freedom of Religion), and Article 26 (Rights to Manage Religious Affairs). The petition also raises concerns about the denial of judicial remedies to address historical injustices.

Several religious and social organisations have intervened in the case, either supporting or opposing the petition. The Union of India which is defending the constitutionality of the Act, argues that it is a crucial instrument for maintaining communal harmony and public order.

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE PLACES OF WORSHIP ACT, 1991

The instant case primarily revolves around the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship Act, 1991. The petioner herein, argues that the Act contravenes fundamental constitutional provisions and undermines the rule of law. The specific grounds of challenge are:

1. Violation of Article 14: The petitioner claims that the Act arbitrarily  freezes the status of places of worship as of August 15, 1947, without considering historical injustices or the rights of affected communities.
2. Violation of Articles 25 and 26: The Act restricts religious freedom by preventing communities from reclaiming or restoring their places of worship. This, as per the petitioner, infringes upon the right to freely practice and manage religious affairs.
3. Contradiction with the Basic Structure Doctrine: The petitioner contends that the Act undermines secularism, a fundamental component of the Constitution’s basic structure. By denying judicial remedies, the Act allegedly creates an imbalance in the treatment of historical grievances. 

The Act’s defenders argue that it serves a legitimate public purpose i.e., to maintain communal harmony and prevent the reopening of disputes that could disturb peace and social cohesion. The exemption of Ayodhya dispute under Section 5 has also been questioned as arbitrary and discriminatory.

ISSUES AT HAND

The Supreme Court has identified several critical issues that require deliberation:

1. Whether Sections 3 and 4 of the Places of Worship Act, 1991, violate Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 25, 26 and 29 of the Indian Constitution. 
2. Whether the Act denies access to judicial remedies, which are protected under Articles 32 and 226.
3. Does the Act perpetuate historical injustices? The petition argues that freezing the status of religious sites as of August 15, 1947, disregards historical wrongs suffered by various communities.
4. Whether the Act conflicts with the secular fabric of the Constitution by preventing the redressal of legitimate grievances.

The resolution of these issues will clarify the legal boundaries of secularism, historical grievances, and the protection of religious places.

ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT AS AND UNTIL 12.12.2024

The instant case has seen extensive arguments from both the petitioner and respondents including multiple intervenors representing diverse perspectives.

1. Arguments by Petitioners

The petioner contends that the Act denies individuals and communities the rights to seek judicial remedies for reclaiming their religious sites. This violates Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution. Placing reference upon the cases of “I.R. Coelho Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2007 SC 861 and L Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125, the petioner argues that Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Impugned Act intends to take away the powers conferred upon the courts under the abovementioned Articles. Thus, the right to judicial remedy is hampered herein.

The petitioner has also argued intensively upon various historical sites which were wrongfully converted in the past. The Act perpetuates these historical injustices by preventing legal remedies. The petitioner contends that by restricting communities from reclaiming their places of worship, the Act infringes upon Articles 25, 26 and 29. It is an imperative right enshrined under these Articles for anyone to profess, practice or propagate their religion freely, However, such a right is denied via the implementation of the Impugned Act. The petioner claims that true secularism requires the resolution of historical grievances, not their perpetuation.

• Arguments by Union of India

The Government although slow and unclear of their stance, defends the Act as a crucial measure to preserve communal peace and prevent disputes that could destabilize the nation. They contend that the Act serves a legitimate purpose by ensuring that the religious character of places of worship, remains undistributed.

• Arguments by Intervenors

Supporters of the Act emphasize its role in maintaining harmony and preventing misuse of historical injustices for political purposes. While the Opponents of the Act argue that it denies justice to communities and contradicts constitutional rights.

SERIES OR TIMELINE OF EVENTS

12^th March 2021: A division bench led by the then Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, issued notice in the matter.

May 2022: During a hearing regarding the Gyanvapi Masjid Survey, CJI D.Y. Chandrachud clarified that ascertaining the “religious character” of a place of worship is not barred under the Act. While determining religious character is allowed, conversion remains prohibited.

14^th November 2022: On this day, a Supreme Court Bench led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud granted some time to the Union Government, through the Solicitor General Mr. Tushar Mehta to conduct deliberations for clearing their stance upon the Impugned Act.

November 2024: A deadly violence erupted in Sambhal following a District Court’s order to survey the Shahi Jama Masjid. 

6^th December 2024: A district Court directed registration of a suit disputing the presence of a Hindu temple under the Atala Mosque in Jaunpur.

7^th December 2024: CJI Sanjiv Khanna formed a Special 3-Judge Bench  comprising of Justices P.V. Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan to hear the matter.

INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT ON 12.12.2024

On 12^th December 2024, the Special Bench comprising CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar, and Justice K.V. Viswanathan issued a significant order. The following directions were laid down:

• That the registration of any further suits demanding or seeking scientific, archaeological, etc., surveys of places of worship was stayed until further orders.
• The Court granted 4-weeks to the Union of India to file a comprehensive counter-affidavit addressing all pending petitions.
• The Bench appointed Nodal Counsels to coordinate the case proceedings. This step was taken to streamline document management, ensure efficient handling of submissions and to make sure that each side is heard. 

The court’s decisions underscore its intent to prevent further escalation of disputes that could disturb communal harmony. By staying the registration of fresh suits and restricting interim proceedings, the court sought to maintain the status quo while the matter remains under judicial scrutiny. The matter is now adjourned to February 17, 2025.

CONCLUSION

The case is a pivotal moment in the Indian Constitutional history, balancing the demands for justice, secularism, and communal harmony. By challenging the Places of Worship Act, 1991, the case questions the preservation of historical injustices while emphasizing constitutional principles like equality and religious freedom. The Supreme Court’s careful interventions, such as the 12^th December 2024 Order staying fresh disputes, highlight its role in maintaining peace during a sensitive judicial process. The forthcoming judgement will clarify how India reconciles its historical complexities with the foundational principles of a secular, democratic state, setting a precedent for future disputes concerning religious sites. 

Author: Sanya Pandey, student Symbiosis Law College, Nagpur

Wish to read similar articles? Click the link to read the same: https://jpassociates.co.in/waqf-amendment-bill-2024/