Half-dozen pleas in SC challenging validity of section
Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs, have the right to profess, practice and propagate religion as provided in their religious scriptures and Article 13 prohibits from making law which takes away their rights
image for illustrative purpose
New Delhi: A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of certain sections of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991, which makes a total of eight petitions filed so far against the Act.
The recent petition filed by a retired army officer Anil Kabotra said a retrospective cut-off date -- August 15, 1947 -- was fixed to legalise the illegal acts of barbaric invaders and pointed out that the Act violates the principles of secularism. The plea, filed through advocate Ashwini Kumar Dubey, challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991, which it said offends Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, 29.
"Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs, have the right to profess, practice and propagate religion as provided in their religious scriptures and Article 13 prohibits from making law which takes away their rights," said Kabotra's plea. It further added, "Right to restore back religious property is unfettered and continuing wrong and injury may be cured by judicial remedy."
Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, advocate Rudra Vikram Singh, Swami Jeetendranand Saraswati, a religious leader, are among the petitioners who have already filed petitions in the top court challenging the 1991 Act.
Recently, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, a Muslim organisation, has also moved the top court seeking to implead in the PIL filed by Upadhyay, on which notice was issued last year.
Citing the 2019 Ayodhya judgment, Jamiat's application said: "This court has categorically held that the law cannot be used as a device to reach back in time and provides a legal remedy to every person who disagrees with the course which history has taken and that the courts of today cannot take cognizance of historical rights and wrongs unless it is shown that their legal consequences are enforceable in the present."
The plea added that the historical wrongs cannot be remedied by the people taking the law in their own hands.
