What Happened
- The Supreme Court indicated it will shortly take up final hearings on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.
- The lead case is Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, filed in 2020, with notice issued to the Union Government in March 2021.
- A Special Bench comprising CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice KV Viswanathan is hearing the matter.
- The Court noted that hearings would be scheduled after two pending nine-judge bench cases listed for March and April 2026.
- In December 2024, the Court had passed an interim order directing that no court in the country shall register any fresh suit, initiate proceedings, or pass effective orders (including surveys) related to places of worship while the constitutional validity challenge is pending.
- The petitions specifically challenge Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Act, which prohibit conversion of any place of worship and bar suits seeking change in the religious character of a place of worship as it stood on 15 August 1947.
- The Union Government had not filed its counter-affidavit despite multiple extensions.
Static Topic Bridges
Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991
The Act was enacted by Parliament in September 1991 during the Ayodhya movement to freeze the religious character of all places of worship as they existed on 15 August 1947. Section 3 prohibits the conversion of any place of worship of any religious denomination into a place of worship of a different denomination or section. Section 4(1) declares that the religious character of a place of worship existing on 15 August 1947 shall continue to be the same as it existed on that day. Section 4(2) bars any suit, appeal, or other proceeding regarding conversion of religious character that was pending on 15 August 1947. The Act explicitly exempts the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute (Section 5).
- Section 3: Criminalises conversion of a place of worship from one religious denomination to another
- Section 4(1): Freezes religious character as on 15 August 1947
- Section 4(2): Bars all pending and future litigation seeking change in religious character
- Section 5: Exempts the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute
- Section 6: Prescribes punishment of up to 3 years imprisonment for contravention
Connection to this news: The petitioners challenge Sections 2, 3, and 4 as violating fundamental rights under Articles 25, 26, and 29, arguing the Act prevents communities from reclaiming religious sites and imposes an arbitrary cut-off date.
Secularism as a Basic Feature of the Constitution
The Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) declared secularism a basic feature of the Constitution that cannot be amended under Article 368. Indian secularism is distinct from Western secularism; it does not mean separation of religion and state but rather equal treatment of all religions by the state. Articles 25-28 guarantee freedom of religion, while Articles 14-15 prohibit discrimination on grounds of religion. In the Ayodhya verdict (M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, 2019), a five-judge Constitution Bench observed that the Places of Worship Act is a legislative instrument designed to protect the secular features of the Indian polity and imposes a non-retrogression obligation on the State.
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): Secularism declared a basic feature
- Articles 25-28: Freedom of religion provisions
- Article 25: Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion
- Article 26: Freedom to manage religious affairs
- M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das (2019): Five-judge bench upheld the Act as preserving secular values
Connection to this news: The constitutional validity challenge pits Articles 25 and 26 (religious freedom of communities claiming historical sites) against the secular principle of non-retrogression that the Act embodies, as endorsed by the Supreme Court in 2019.
Judicial Power of Review and Writ Jurisdiction
Under Articles 32 and 226, the Supreme Court and High Courts respectively possess the power of judicial review to examine the constitutional validity of any legislation. Article 13(2) declares that the State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges fundamental rights, and any law made in contravention shall be void to the extent of contravention. The doctrine of basic structure (Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973) further limits Parliament's power, ensuring that even constitutional amendments cannot destroy the basic features of the Constitution.
- Article 32: Right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights
- Article 226: High Court writ jurisdiction
- Article 13(2): Laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are void
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Basic structure doctrine established
Connection to this news: The pending challenge invokes Article 32 to test whether Sections 3 and 4 of the Act violate Articles 25, 26, and 29 or whether the Act validly protects the secular basic structure of the Constitution.
Key Facts & Data
- The Places of Worship Act was enacted on 18 September 1991
- Cut-off date under the Act: 15 August 1947 (Independence Day)
- Lead petition: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India (2020)
- Notice issued to Union: March 2021
- December 2024 interim order: Stay on fresh suits, surveys, and effective orders by all courts
- Bench: CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, Justice KV Viswanathan
- The Act was upheld in obiter dicta by the five-judge bench in M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das (2019)
- Nodal counsel for petitioners: Vishnu Shankar Jain