SC lays down the law: Stop all surveys until we decide Places of Worship Act

The court will hear the matter next on February 17, 2025.

Noting that the Centre was yet to make its stand clear on the issue, the bench, also comprising Justices P V Sanjay Kumar and K V Viswanathan, asked the government to file its reply in four weeks.

“We want the Union of India’s position to be brought on record,” it said.

The bench’s directions have effectively stalled proceedings in civil suits filed across India – over the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi to the Shahi Idgah in Mathura to the Jama Masjid in Sambhal – and accepted by civil courts, bypassing the Places of Worship Act.

The 1991 law, brought in by the then P V Narasimha Rao-led Congress government during the height of the Ram temple movement, prohibits conversion of any place of worship and provides for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947. The dispute relating to Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid in Ayodhya was kept out of its purview.

There are several cross-petitions which seek strict implementation of the 1991 law to maintain communal harmony and to preserve the present status of mosques, sought to be reclaimed by Hindu groups on the ground that these were temples before being razed by invaders.

At the outset of the hearing Thursday, CJI Khanna made it clear that the court intended to stay registration of further suits. “On the fresh suits, we have no difficulty, we are passing that order,” he said.

Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for a petitioner who sought implementation of the Act, then sought a stay on further proceedings in pending suits too.

“Where suits are already filed, those proceedings may be already stayed for the present. That’s the one which creates the problem because surveys, surveys to find out… These are what have to be stopped,” he submitted. The counsel for the petitioners opposed the prayer, saying the court should not stay proceedings in pending suits without hearing them in detail.

“Your Lordships may not pass such orders without hearing us,” Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, representing a petitioner, told the bench. “Your Lordships have just taken up this matter and we are not prepared… My Lords won’t pass such an order in a matter pending for years,” he said.

But the CJI said, “At this stage, there are two things. When we say the matter requires consideration – obviously the matter requires consideration – we are not saying matter doesn’t require consideration. Once we are saying those issues with regard to sections 3 and 4 (of the Act) require consideration, will it not be proper that there is a stay off hand by the other courts?”

“Either we say we will not examine those matters, then we can put you up to the High Courts. If you want us to do that, we can do that. But when a matter is pending before us and we are examining the matter, will it be just and fair for anybody, any other court to then examine?” he said.

Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, appearing for another petitioner, said the court is only examining the constitutional validity of the Act and not the merits of individual suits.  “This is not on the merits of the suits. Your Lordships are examining the vires of the Act.”

CJI Khanna said, “We are examining… vires, contours and ambit of the Act. Therefore, at this stage, when we are examining the issue, it is better that we examine it.”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, asked whether parties “who are strangers to a suit (petitioners challenging the 1991 Act) can seek stay of proceedings in a suit”.

“As a proposition, so far as intra party suits are concerned, jurisprudentially – I am not taking sides – would it be possible for a stranger, a private party, to come and say that stay all the suits? That is a question Your Lordships may have to decide,” he said.

The bench, in oral observations, also referred to the November 2019 verdict in the Ayodhya matter and said “civil courts cannot race with the Supreme Court”.

“When you have a judgment of 5 judges setting out certain principles, civil courts cannot run a race with the Supreme Court. As simple as this. That has to be decided,” Justice Viswanathan said.

He said while there are petitions raising questions on the constitutional validity of the Act arguing that it takes away the power of judicial review, there are also larger questions on whether such suits can be allowed even if the Places of Worship Act did not exist.

“(On) Section 3 (of the Act that bars conversion of religious character), one view is that it is only an effective manifestation or a reiteration of the already embedded constitutional principles. So much so that even without the Act, if a suit were to be objected to on the ground of plain constitutional principles, an argument may arise,” he said.

The CJI too referred to the Ayodhya judgment in which the Supreme Court had said “the law (Places of Worship Act) speaks to our history and to the future of the nation. Cognizant as we are of our history and of the need for the nation to confront it, Independence was a watershed moment to heal the wounds of the past.

Historical wrongs cannot be remedied by the people taking the law in their own hands. In preserving the character of places of public worship, Parliament has mandated in no uncertain terms that history and its wrongs shall not be used as instruments to oppress the present and the future.”
The CJI made the reference when Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for a petitioner, said the court will need to decide whether the matter has to be referred to a five-judge bench.

The CJI said, “We will examine it once we hear it out because we have the Ram Janmabhoomi judgment also.”