To respond to petitions pertaining to the Places of Worship Act, the Center requests further time from the Supreme Court.

Supreme court

The Supreme Court has granted the central government an extension of time to respond to many applications that question the legality of the Places of Worship Act. The case has been postponed until the first week of January as a result, and the government has been asked to submit its affidavit by December 12. The ordinance, which went into effect on July 11, 1991, during the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid conflict, preserved the “religious character” of every site of worship as it existed in 1947.

The matter was scheduled to be heard by a three-judge bench in September after the court gave the Centre time to respond to the petitions. All petitions and applications were given notice by the court, and all parties were instructed to distribute copies of their petitions and applications.

On October 11, it requested that the Registry present these issues to the relevant three-judge panel. The federal government was given an additional two weeks to respond in October.

“Muslim places of worship are being made the subject of spurious debates and actions, which are manifestly banned under the 1991 Act,” the Jamiat UIlama i-Hind petition, which sought the execution of the law, had stated.

The Vishwa Bhadra Pujari Purohit Mahasangh filed a different petition in June 2020. It contested the statute on the grounds that it prevents residents from bringing legal actions to regain land that belonged to temples that Muslim authorities had destroyed, denying judicial scrutiny.

When the top court declined to hear a petition from a Jain sect alleging that another sect had converted its religious sites, it stated earlier in July that the 1991 Places of Worship Act could not be used in a dispute between two factions of the same faith. “How do you submit a petition under Article 32? You must bring a civil lawsuit. It’s a conflict between two sects. The Places of Worship Act does not allow for this, the bench had stated.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *