A special bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, will hear pleas challenging the constitutionality of the Places of Worship Act, 1991 on December 12.
A three-judge bench led by the CJI and comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar, and K.V. Viswanathan will take up the matter for hearing at 3.30pm on the day. The petitioners question the constitutional validity of certain sections of the Act passed by then P.V. Narasimha Rao government.
Though the lead petition in the case was filed in 2020, the Centre is yet to file a counter-affidavit in the matter despite the apex court giving an extension several times, Live Law reported.
The petitioners in the case include persons from all walks of life including the daughter of the Kashi royal family, Maharaja Kumari Krishna Priya; BJP leader Subramanian Swamy; former MP Chintamani Malviya; Anil Kabotra, a retired army officer; advocates Chandra Shekhar; Rudra Vikram Singh, resident of Varanasi; Swami Jeetendranand Saraswati, a religious leader; Devkinandan Thakur Ji, resident of Mathura and a religious guru and advocate Ashwini Upadhyay.
Also read
- Kolkata gang-rape: Supreme Court lawyer writes to CJI urging suo motu cognisance
- 'No immunity for serving in Operation Sindoor': Supreme Court to Black Cat commando who allegedly murdered wife
- No true democracy without social justice: CJI BR Gavai
- Why SC’s 3-year practice requirement for judges is under scanner
The petitioners contend certain sections of the Act violate fundamental rights granted to a citizen under Articles 14 and 25 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners have questioned the validity of sections 2,3 and 4 under the Act and said it violates the rights of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs to pray, profess, practice and prorogate religion as per the Constitution.
Meanwhile, the Gyanvapi mosque management committee, the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind and the India Muslim Personal Law Board have also filed petitions in the apex court demanding the petitions against the Act be dismissed. The Muslim side argued that the consequences of granting the petitioners’ prayer of declaring the Act would be “ drastic”.
