Places of Worship Act: Owaisi Moves Supreme Court Seeking to Restrain Courts from Passing Hasty Orders in Mandir-Masjid Disputes

(Judicial Quest News Network)

Member of Parliament and President of All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen (AIMIM), Asaduddin Owaisi, has filed a public interest litigation (PIL) before the Supreme Court, urging the court to enforce the provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The PIL also calls for clear guidelines on the procedure courts must follow when handling suits that raise claims regarding religious sites, emphasizing the need for judicial caution before passing orders related to such disputes.

The petition was brought before a bench consisting of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, who decided to tag the PIL with a batch of pending petitions related to the constitutional validity and implementation of the Places of Worship Act. Advocate Nizamuddin Pasha Appeared for Mr. Owaisi, these petitions will be heard together on February 17, 2025.

The 1991 Act prohibits the alteration of the religious character of any place of worship as it stood on August 15, 1947. This legislation is a key point of contention in several ongoing legal battles, with some petitions challenging its constitutional validity. Among these petitions is a writ filed by Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Hind, which seeks the enforcement of the Act to preserve the sanctity of places of worship across the country. The order will impact on the communal disharmony being witnessed in the country due to these suits recently 5 people died in Sambhal U.P after a lower court issued orders for the survey of a historic Mosque

“This tragic incident is a stark indicator of the risks to communal harmony and public lives posed by such suits being entertained and surveys being ordered without due regard to the provisions of the 1991 Act. The incident at Sambhal is only the immediate trigger for this petition, and the issue extends beyond a singular occurrence and depicts a broader pattern that is being carefully designed and executed to undermine the secular fabric of the country and exploit it for political advantage. In this process, administration of justice also suffers in the nation.”

Owaisi’s petition brings attention to the growing concerns over communal tensions exacerbated by the recent survey orders, such as those affecting the Sambhal Mosque. The petition flags the potential for violence and communal disharmony arising from such legal actions, particularly in states where sensitive religious matters have led to public unrest. The petitioner warns that the aftermath of these surveys could further polarize communities and contribute to a deteriorating law-and-order situation.

One of the key aspects of Owaisi’s petition is the identification of six common issues that arise in suits filed against mosques, dargahs, and other religious places of worship across India. These are as follows

I. The suits claim that the Delhi Sultanate / Mughal era mosques/dargahs were constructed by demolishing temples centuries ago.

II. Most of these suits are examples of clever drafting attempting to create a façade of a cause of action where none exists. For instance, in an attempt to overcome limitation, the cause of action in most of these cases is said to arise at a time which is proximate to the filing of the suits, with plaintiffs asserting that they only ‘recently discovered’ the existence of the mosques.

III. The plaint is frequently accompanied by a demand for surveys citing the existence of ‘Hindu symbols’ in the place of worship and expressing a fear that the so-called symbols are likely to be effaced.

IV. In most cases the plaintiffs are not local residents of the area.

V. The Plaint is cleverly drafted to ensure that the structure is not referred to as a Mosque. For example, in Gyanvapi, the suits refer to the Mosque as “Old Temple” or “Old Temple Complex”.

VI. In most cases, the suit is presented at the initial stage itself along with an application seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to survey the structure. This survey is mostly sought “on the basis of averments of the

plaint”.

 These include improper or hasty judicial actions and a lack of careful consideration of the implications of the Places of Worship Act.

The main relief sought by Owaisi is that the Supreme Court issue directions to all courts, setting out a clear procedure for dealing with suits involving religious sites. The petition calls for courts to exercise judicial caution before admitting such suits or passing any orders, ensuring that cases that seek to bypass the protections offered by the Places of Worship Act are not entertained. Additionally, the petition asks the Supreme Court to ensure that courts thoroughly examine the maintainability of each suit at the outset, particularly in light of the 1991 Act.

Moreover, Owaisi has requested that courts and tribunals be instructed to halt any further proceedings in cases where a religious site is found to be involved, until sufficient time is given for the aggrieved parties to appeal the maintainability decision. This measure is intended to prevent the premature advancement of cases that are clearly contrary to the intent of the Places of Worship Act. The petitioner contended that

“The courts concerned ought to apply their mind at the very threshold before admitting / issuing summons in a suit, and orders, if any, including for surveys should be passed only after granting the defendants an opportunity to be heard and should be executed only after providing sufficient time to the aggrieved parties to seek appropriate judicial remedies against the order.”

This PIL highlights the urgent need for a careful and measured approach when dealing with religious disputes in Indian courts. By calling for adherence to the provisions of the Places of Worship Act, Owaisi seeks to safeguard communal harmony and protect the integrity of religious sites that have been in place for decades, if not centuries.

The outcome of this petition could have significant implications on the handling of religious disputes in India, with far-reaching consequences for the judicial approach to such sensitive matters.

On December 12 2024, the bench of CJI Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Vishwanathan ordered an interim stay against filing any suits against places of worship and restrained district courts from directing surveys in pending suits.

Counsel for the petitioners Advocate Nizamuddin Pasha, Advocate Awstika Das, AOR Fuzail Ayyubi