'There is a limit': Supreme Court on fresh pleas relating to 1991 places of worship law

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday expressed displeasure over fresh pleas filed regarding the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.
The apex court adjourned the hearing of pleas filed challenging the validity Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991, which preserves the character of religious places as they existed on August 15, 1947.
'There is a limit,' says SC
Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, sitting as a two-judge bench, indicated they might not hear cases previously managed by three judges.
When senior advocate Indira Jaising raised a new petition, the CJI said, "We might not be able to take it up."
The CJI expressed concern about the increasing number of petitions and interim applications, suggesting a possible hearing date in March.
"There is a limit to which petitions can be filed. So many IAs (interim applications) have been filed. We might not be able to take it up", the CJI said.
Multiple pleas filed
Through its December 12, 2024 order, the court halted proceedings in 18 lawsuits by Hindu groups seeking surveys of 10 mosques, including Gyanvapi, Shahi Idgah Masjid, and Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal, where four people lost their lives in violence. The court had scheduled all petitions for hearing on February 17.
Post December 12, new petitions were filed by AIMIM's Asaduddin Owaisi, Kairana MP Iqra Choudhary, and Congress, seeking enforcement of the 1991 law.
On February 14, Choudhary voiced concerns about legal actions against mosques and dargahs threatening national harmony. The court agreed to examine Owaisi's similar petition.
The Akhil Bhartiya Sant Samiti sought to join cases challenging the 1991 law's validity. Previously, the court heard six petitions, including lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay's challenge to the law's provisions.
The Ayodhya dispute was excluded from this law.
Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind advocates strict implementation to preserve mosques' status, while Upadhyay seeks to invalidate Sections 2, 3, and 4. Petitioners argue these provisions deny judicial remedy for reclaiming worship places.
The court noted the focus on Sections 3 and 4 of the law, saying, "ultimately, we will have to hear the arguments."
Section 3 addresses conversion prohibition, while Section 4 covers religious character declarations and court jurisdiction limits. The Gyanvapi Mosque committee opposed petitions challenging the 1991 law's validity.
The committee highlighted disputes involving various mosques and dargahs, suggesting the petitions were filed to enable lawsuits against protected religious sites.