The CPI(M) seeks to intervene in the Supreme Court’s hearing on the Places of Worship Act, arguing it is crucial for maintaining secularism and preventing communal conflicts in India.
On December 9, 2024, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)), represented by Prakash Karat, a Member of the Politburo, filed an Intervention Application in the Supreme Court, opposing petitions that challenge the constitutionality of the Places of Worship Act, 1991. The CPI(M) argued that the Act is vital for preserving India's secular fabric by prohibiting the alteration of the religious character of places of worship as they stood on August 15, 1947. The party emphasized that the Act plays a crucial role in maintaining communal harmony and preventing conflicts rooted in historical religious disputes.
CPI(M) Arguments Against Challenging the Act
- Upholding Secularism and Equality:
- In its intervention, the CPI(M) stressed that the Places of Worship Act helps protect the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 21, and 25 of the Indian Constitution, ensuring equality, non-discrimination, and freedom of religion for all citizens.
- The party stated that any attempt to repeal or alter the Act would pose a threat to these constitutional principles.
- Preserving Communal Harmony:
- The CPI(M) emphasized the Act’s role in preventing the escalation of conflicts related to religious sites. They noted that the proliferation of litigation challenging the religious character of places of worship, including Mosques and Dargahs, could destabilize the constitutional mandate and undermine secularism.
Legal Background and Pending Petitions
- Petitions Challenging the Act:
- The lead petition challenging the Places of Worship Act was filed in 2020 by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay against the Union of India (W.P. (C) No. 1246/2020). This was followed by several similar petitions, including those filed by Vishwa Bhadra Pujari Purohit Mahasangh (W.P. (C) No. 559/2020) and Dr. Subhramanian Swamy (W.P. (C) No. 619/2020).
- The petitioners argue that the Act, which preserves the status quo of religious structures as they existed in 1947, should be deemed unconstitutional.
- Government's Delay in Response:
- The Union Government has failed to file its counter-affidavit, despite being granted multiple extensions by the Supreme Court. The Court had set a deadline for the government to submit its response by October 31, 2023, but it has yet to do so.
Recent Developments in Related Cases
- Gyanvapi Mosque's Intervention:
- In the ongoing legal developments, the Managing Committee of the Gyanvapi Mosque has also filed an intervention application in the Supreme Court. The committee expressed concern that a ruling declaring the Places of Worship Act unconstitutional would have “drastic consequences” for religious structures in India.
Court's Schedule for the Case
- A special bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice KV Viswanathan is scheduled to hear the matter on December 12, 2024.
- The intervention application filed by CPI(M) and the ongoing petitions will be examined in light of the Act’s constitutional validity and its potential consequences on India's secularism.
The Places of Worship Act: A Legal Overview
- Purpose of the Act:
The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 aims to maintain the status quo with respect to the religious character of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947.- It prohibits the filing of lawsuits seeking the conversion of religious places and mandates that no effort should be made to alter the religious nature of any site.
- Controversy and Ongoing Litigation:
- The Places of Worship Act has been at the center of ongoing litigation, especially in relation to prominent religious sites like the Gyanvapi Mosque and the Babri Masjid. The controversy surrounding the Act stems from political and social debates about its implications on religious freedom and historical justice.
Case Details: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India., W.P. (C) No. 1246.2020 & Vishwa Bhadra Pujari Purohit Mahasangh v. UOI, W.P. (C) No.559/2020 and Dr. Subhramanian Swamy And Ors v. UOI., W.P. (C) No.619/2020
