Supreme court directs No more petition on Places of worship act 1993

The Supreme Court of India has taken a firm stance on the increasing number of interventions
in petitions challenging the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The Act, which
mandates that the religious character of any place of worship must remain as it was on August
15, 1947, has been a subject of intense debate. With multiple petitions seeking to overturn or
modify its provisions, the apex court has now stressed the need to limit interventions and
streamline proceedings to ensure judicial efficiency.

The Judiciary’s Growing Concern

In a recent hearing, a Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud raised
concerns over the sheer volume of interventions being filed in the ongoing cases. The court’s
position was clear: an unregulated flood of petitions could hinder rather than facilitate justice.
While addressing the matter, the bench noted that every new intervention brings in repetitive
arguments, complicating the process unnecessarily.
“We must ensure that the judicial process remains structured and efficient. If every petitioner is
allowed to file an independent case, it will create chaos rather than clarity,” remarked the Chief
Justice.
The court’s suggestion? Instead of filing separate writ petitions, individuals and groups with
similar grievances should file intervention applications in already pending cases. This approach
would help consolidate arguments and ensure that every perspective is considered without
burdening the judiciary with redundant proceedings.

Why is the Act Being Challenged?
At the heart of the controversy lies the fundamental question: Can a law prevent communities
from reclaiming religious sites they believe were historically altered? Several petitioners have
argued that the 1991 Act is unconstitutional, as it restricts their right to seek legal remedies for
historical injustices.
A few of the main arguments against the Act include:

1. Violation of Fundamental Rights – The petitioners argue that the Act violates Articles 14, 25,
   and 26 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law and the right to practice,
   profess, and propagate religion. By freezing the status of religious places as of August 15, 1947,
   the law denies affected communities the right to seek redress.
2. Arbitrary Cutoff Date – Why August 15, 1947? Critics argue that this arbitrary date does not
   take into account the historical and legal context of certain religious disputes. They believe that
   grievances that arose before independence should also be addressed in a fair and legal
   manner.
3. Conflict with Property Rights – Some petitioners contend that the Act prevents rightful owners
   from reclaiming their property, even if historical evidence suggests that a place of worship was
   wrongfully converted. This, they argue, conflicts with basic property rights and legal remedies
   available in other cases.

The Legal Battle So Far

The Places of Worship Act was enacted in 1991 with the primary objective of preserving
communal harmony by ensuring that no new disputes arise over religious sites. The law came
into focus during the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute, where an exception was made
for the Ayodhya case. Since then, it has remained a contentious legal and political issue.
In 2020, a petition challenging the Act was filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, arguing
that the law contradicts constitutional rights. The petition was admitted, and since then,
numerous others have followed suit. With multiple parties seeking intervention, the Supreme
Court is now faced with the challenge of managing these proceedings efficiently.
To address the situation, the court has now ruled that new petitioners must file intervention
applications in the existing cases rather than starting fresh litigation. This decision ensures that
all concerns are heard while preventing procedural delays and duplication of efforts

Balancing Religious Rights and Legal Stability

The Supreme Court’s latest directive is not merely about managing caseloads—it is about
finding a balance between religious rights and legal stability. If every historical grievance were
allowed to be litigated independently, it could lead to a never-ending cycle of disputes that could
disrupt social harmony.
On the other hand, critics argue that denying legal recourse to affected communities only
exacerbates the sense of injustice. They believe that a more nuanced approach is needed—one
that acknowledges historical grievances while ensuring that justice is served without fueling
communal tensions.
The court’s decision to streamline interventions reflects an effort to navigate this complex legal
and social landscape. By consolidating petitions, it aims to ensure that every argument is heard
without overwhelming the judiciary with redundant cases.

The Road Ahead

As the case progresses, all eyes will be on how the Supreme Court balances constitutional
rights, historical claims, and the need for social harmony. If the Act is struck down or modified, it
could set a precedent for future religious and historical disputes. On the other hand, if the Act is
upheld, it will reaffirm the government’s commitment to maintaining the status quo and
preventing new conflicts.
For now, the focus remains on streamlining the legal process. By limiting interventions, the
Supreme Court is attempting to ensure a structured and efficient hearing. However, the larger
question—whether the Act itself should be reformed or repealed—remains unanswered.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s directive to limit interventions in the Places of Worship Act petitions is a
strategic move aimed at maintaining judicial efficiency. While the Act was designed to protect
communal harmony, its constitutional validity is being questioned on multiple grounds.
As the case unfolds, it will be crucial to see how the judiciary balances the principles of justice,
historical grievances, and social stability. For now, one thing is certain: this legal battle is far
from over.

Author

Kusha Mehta is a law student at Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, with a background in economics. She has experience in legal research, writing, and analysis, with internships at NyayaSarthak and the International Institute of SDGs & Public Policy Research. Passionate about advocacy and policy, she has also completed certifications from Harvard University.