SC refuses to entertain fresh plea against Places of Worship Act

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a fresh petition challenging the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, observing that it would not allow multiple proceedings on the same issue.

“This is the same plea. Stop filing petitions and applications,” observed a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar, dismissing attempts to draw a distinction between the new petition and the earlier ones.

The court, however, granted the petitioner, law student Nitin Upadhyay, the liberty to move an application in the batch of cases where the constitutional validity of the law is already under scrutiny.

Upadhyay’s petition challenged the constitutional validity of a provision in 1991 Act, which mandates that the religious character of a place of worship must be maintained as it was on August 15, 1947, barring any changes.

When Upadhyay’s counsel argued that there was a “subtle difference” between his petition and others, the court remained unconvinced. The order stated: “It would be open for the petitioner to file an application in the case already pending if there are new grounds.”

Enacted by Parliament under the PV Narasimha Rao government, the Act was introduced in the backdrop of the Ayodhya Ram Mandir movement and effectively froze the religious character of places of worship as they stood at the time of India’s Independence, with the sole exception of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute, which was already the subject of litigation and was later demolished by karsevaks on December 6, 1992.

Also Read: Top court to hear Places of Worship Act pleas in April

Following the Supreme Court’s 2019 verdict, a Ram temple has since been constructed at the Ayodhya site. However, the Act continues to operate as a legal barrier against any attempts to change the status of other disputed religious sites, including the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah in Mathura and the Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi. Notably, the law does not apply to ancient monuments or archaeological sites governed by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.

In a significant interim order issued on December 12, 2024, the Supreme Court restrained courts across India from registering fresh suits or ordering surveys concerning the religious character of existing religious structures. This stay order directly impacted pending legal proceedings, including those related to the Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi mosque, Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah, Sambhal Jama Masjid, Bhojshala, and Ajmer Sharif Dargah disputes, preventing lower courts from passing any effective or final orders on such matters. The top court clarified that it was actively reviewing both the validity and scope of the 1991 Act.

In his petition, Upadhyay has sought a directive allowing courts to determine the original religious character of a place of worship and has specifically challenged Section 4(2) of the Act, which prohibits any legal proceedings aimed at altering a site’s religious identity. He has argued that the law violates the basic structure of the Constitution by restricting judicial remedies, asserting that barring individuals from approaching courts infringes upon their fundamental rights. He further contends that structural modifications should be allowed to restore a site’s original religious character, and that the Act does not explicitly prohibit scientific or documentary surveys for such purposes.

During an earlier hearing in February, the Supreme Court had expressed concern over the sheer volume of petitions related to the Act. On February 17, 2025, the bench, led by CJI Khanna, rebuked the repeated filings, stating: “There is a limit to which petitions can be filed. Enough is enough. There has to be an end to this…Too many petitions filed.” While dismissing certain petitions that had not yet been admitted, the Bench granted petitioners the liberty to file fresh applications presenting additional legal grounds.

The legal battle over the Places of Worship Act has attracted a broad spectrum of political and ideological stakeholders. The Congress has approached the Supreme Court to defend the law, arguing that it is crucial for maintaining communal harmony in India. In its plea, the Congress asserted that the Act upholds secularism, aligns with the mandate of the Indian people, and was a commitment made in the party’s 1991 election manifesto. The party criticised the challenges to the Act, claiming they are politically motivated attempts to undermine India’s secular foundation.

Apart from the Congress, several political figures and parties have joined the legal battle, either challenging or defending the Act. Those supporting the law include the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), NCP (Sharad Pawar faction) MLA Jitendra Awhad, RJD MP Manoj Kumar Jha, MP Thol Thirumavalavan, and AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi. Owaisi, along with Muslim groups such as Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, has petitioned for strict enforcement of the Act, arguing that it is essential to preserve India’s secular fabric.

Conversely, several petitioners, including BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay and former Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy, have called for the annulment or modification of the Act. Upadhyay has asked the Supreme Court to strike down various provisions of the Act, contending that the law discriminates against Hindu, Sikh, Jain, and Buddhist communities by permanently freezing the religious character of disputed sites, while making an exception for the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi site. Swamy, on the other hand, has sought amendments to the Act to allow Hindus to claim ownership of the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah Mosque in Mathura. The first major petition challenging the Act was filed in 2020 by Upadhyay, marking the beginning of a prolonged legal and political debate over the law’s implications.

The legal wrangling over the Places of Worship Act has intensified amid ongoing demands from Hindu litigants who argue that the legislation violates their fundamental rights by preventing them from reclaiming religious sites allegedly altered during historical invasions.