The Supreme Court docket is prone to hear on Monday a batch of PILs difficult the validity of sure provisions of a 1991 regulation which prohibit submitting of a lawsuit to reclaim a spot of worship or search a change in its character from what prevailed on August 15, 1947.
A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha has listed as many as six petitions, together with these filed by former Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy, in opposition to the provisions of the regulation.
On November 14 final yr, Solicitor Common Tushar Mehta, showing for the Centre, had mentioned {that a} complete affidavit will probably be filed by the Union authorities coping with varied sides of the case and sought some extra time to make sure that the affidavit is filed after due deliberation at varied ranges of the federal government.
“On the request so made, we direct that the counter affidavit be filed on or earlier than 12 December 2022. A duplicate of the counter affidavit shall be circulated to the counsel for the petitioners and intervenors in all of the companion issues. Checklist the Petitions on 9 January 2023,” the bench had ordered on the final date of listening to.
The highest courtroom was listening to the pleas together with the one filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay who has mentioned sections 2, 3, 4 of the Locations of Worship (Particular Provisions) Act, 1991 be put aside on grounds together with that these provisions take away the best of judicial treatment to reclaim a spot of worship of any individual or a spiritual group.
Whereas listening to the matter on September 9, the apex courtroom had mentioned the pleas difficult the validity of sure provisions of the 1991 regulation might be referred to a five-judge Structure bench for adjudication and requested the Centre to file a reply.
Whereas BJP chief and former Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy wished the apex courtroom to “learn down” sure provisions to allow Hindus to stake declare over mosques at Gyanvapi in Varanasi and Mathura respectively, Upadhyay claimed the complete statute was unconstitutional and therefore no query of studying down arises.
The doctrine of studying down a regulation in typically used to avoid wasting a statute from being struck down on account of its unconstitutionality.
Alternatively, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, represented by advocate Ejaz Maqbool, had referred to the five-judge Structure bench judgement within the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title case and mentioned the 1991 regulation has been referred to there and it can’t be put aside now.
The highest courtroom had on March 12 final yr sought the Centre’s response to the plea filed by Upadhyay difficult the validity of sure provisions of the regulation which offer for sustaining establishment on the possession and character of spiritual locations as prevailing on August 15, 1947.
The petition alleged that the 1991 regulation creates an “arbitrary and irrational retrospective closing date” of August 15, 1947 for sustaining the character of the locations of worship or pilgrimage in opposition to encroachment finished by “fundamentalist-barbaric invaders and law-breakers”.
The 1991 provision is an Act to ban conversion of anyplace of worship and to supply for the upkeep of the non secular character of anyplace of worship because it existed on August 15, 1947, and for issues linked therewith or incidental thereto.
The regulation had made just one exception — on the dispute pertaining to the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri masjid in Ayodhya.