The Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday emphasised that any dispute between different communities related to religious structures is highly sensitive and endangers public order. This came after All India Muslim Personal Board (AIMPLB) stressed upon the Places of Worship (POW) Act 1991 for maintaining peace and tranquillity in the country to the court.AIMPLB, in its application cited Sri Krishna Commission report to say “December 1992 (Post-Babri masjid demolition) riots were due to hurt feelings that the Muslims felt by shameful act of demolition of Babri Masjid on December 6”. Citing the report, the applicant said had there been no riots in December 1992, there would not have been bomb blasts in March 1993 (Bombay blasts).
The AIMPLB application mentioned: “Object and purpose of this Act is to put an end to ancient and stale claims related to places of worship. Any dispute relating to place of worship between different communities is highly sensitive and endangers the breach of public order as it polarizes people on ground of religion. Our country has witnessed blood baths after the controversy erupted in respect of Babri Masjid. In this context it is relevant to quote finding of Sri Krishna commission set up to enquire causes of bomb blast that occurred in March 1993.”
WHO ARE THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE SC?
Following are the petitioners in the 8 pending pending pleas challenging constitutional validity of POW Act:
SC advocate and BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay, BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, Vishwa Pujari Purohit Mahasangh through SC advocates Hari Shankar Jain and Vishnu Shankar Jain, Advocate Chandra Shekhar, Guru Devakinandan, advocate Rudra Vikram Singh, Swami Jeetendranand, and Lt Col Anil Kabotra
The five-judge Ayodhya bench, headed by then Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, had dealt with the 1991 Act and had said that the law is a legislative instrument designed to protect the secular features of Indian polity, which is one of the basic features of the Constitution.
Pleas challenging the Act said the remarks were mere observations without any judicial force as the Act was not under challenge during the proceedings.
Parliament cannot close the doors for aggrieved persons and cannot take away the power of the courts of first instance, appellate court and the power of constitutional courts conferred under Article 226 and 32 of the Constitution of India, they say
The parliament also cannot restrain Hindu devotees from getting back their religious places of worship through the judicial process, the pleas said.
It cannot make any law which takes away or abridges the vested religious right of devotees and cannot make any law with retrospective effect, it said.
“The parliament cannot restrain Hindu devotees to get back their religious places of worship through judicial process and cannot make any law which takes away or abridges the vested religious right of devotees and cannot make any law with retrospective effect,” said the petitions filed by advocates Vishnu Shankar Jain.
Upadhyay says that Act takes away rights of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs to reclaim their places of worship through Courts & legalize illegal acts of invaders.
The suits say Parliament cannot legalize the illegal action of invader which infringes religious rights of Hindus guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution.
