On what basis has the law been challenged by the BJP leader and what are its implications?
the story So Far: Earlier this month, the Supreme Court asked the Center to respond to a petition that challenged constitutional validity. Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. On August 15, 1947, a law was enacted to free all places of worship in the country. An exception was made to keep the Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi dispute out of its purview. The dispute ended after the court ruled that the land on which the mosque stood should be handed over to the Hindu community for the construction of the Ram temple. The challenge of the Act calls into question the validity of prohibiting any community from claiming other places of worship.
What does the 1991 Act say?
The Act states that no person shall convert any place of worship of any religious sect into a separate sect or class. This includes the announcement that the place of worship will continue on August 15, 1947. Significantly, it prohibits any legal proceedings in relation to the character of the place of worship, and declares that all lawsuits and appeals are pending. No court or authority shall terminate on the date of the cut-off in connection with the conversion of the character of the place of worship. In other words, all pending cases will end and no further action can be taken. However, any litigation or proceeding related to any conversion of the situation that occurred after the cut-off date can continue.
Read this also. What does the Worship Act Act protect?
The 1991 Act will not apply in certain cases. It shall not be applicable to ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains covered by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. It shall also not apply to any suit which is finally settled or disposed of, prior to the enactment of the 1991 Act, or settled by the parties to the conversion of any place, taken by acquaintances. Was.
The act was specifically exempted from its purview, commonly known as the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. This was done to continue the pending litigation as well as to maintain scope for a settlement settlement.
Any person who violates the prohibition on converting as a place of worship can be imprisoned for up to three years, and fined. Those executing this crime or participating in criminal conspiracy will also get the same punishment.
What are the grounds for the challenge?
The petitioner, Ashwini Upadhyay of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), argues that the Act snatches away the rights of communities such as Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains to reclaim their places of worship through legal proceedings. It amounts to snatching the right of the people to get justice through the courts and to get a judicial remedy. He also said that the cut-off date of August 15, 1947 is arbitrary and irrational.
Read this also. Ayodhya land exempted in place of worship (special provision) Act: Supreme Court
The petition stated that the law legitimized the actions of invaders in the past who demolished places of worship. It makes one wonder how the law can relinquish Rama’s birthplace, but not that of Krishna’s.
It is also said that the law violates the right to propagate and propagate religion, as well as the right to manage and administer places of worship. Furthermore, it goes against the principle of secularism and the state’s duty to preserve and preserve religious and cultural heritage.
What does SC say on status freeze?
In its final judgment on the Ayodhya dispute, the Supreme Court observed that the Act is “a non-derogatory obligation to enforce our commitment to secularism”. The court stated: “Non-regression is a fundamental feature of fundamental constitutional principles, of which secularism is a core component.”
Read this also. Center must reaffirm 1991 Act on places of worship: CPI (M)
The court termed this law as a law protecting secularism by not allowing the status of a post-independence shrine to be replaced. A five-judge bench said that in the context of caution against attempts to change the place of worship, “historical mistakes cannot be overcome by people taking the law into their own hands.” In preserving the character of places of public worship, Parliament has ordered without any uncertain words that history and its misuse will not be used as instruments for present and future persecution. “
What are the implications of the case?
Some Hindu organizations have been claiming the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi and the royal Idgah in Mathura. A civil suit has been filed in the court of Mathura demanding that the 17th-century mosque be moved from this place, claiming that some claim to be the birthplace of Lord Krishna. Any order that strikes or dilutes the 1991 law on the status of places of worship is likely to affect the outcome of such proceedings.
Leave a Reply