NEW DELHI: In a major intervention in disputes over the identities of mosques and dargahs, the Supreme Court on Thursday barred the courts across the country from entertaining fresh lawsuits and passing any effective interim or final orders in pending ones seeking to reclaim religious places.
A special bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan that was hearing a clutch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991 said, "As the matter is sub-judice in this court, we deem it appropriate that no fresh suit would be registered and proceedings are undertaken till further orders of this court. We also direct that in the pending suits, the courts would not pass any effective interim orders or final orders, including orders of survey, till the next date of hearing."
The apex court directive has effectively stalled proceedings in 18 ongoing lawsuits filed by various Hindu parties seeking a survey to ascertain the original religious character of 10 mosques, including Gyanvapi at Varanasi, Shahi Idgah Masjid at Mathura and Shahi Jama Masjid at Sambhal, where four persons were recently killed in communal clashes.
The top court was hearing about six petitions, including the lead one filed by lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay, challenging various provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991.
The 1991 law prohibits conversion of any place of worship and provides for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947. The dispute relating to Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid at Ayodhya was the only exception under the law.
There are several cross petitions that seek strict implementation of the 1991 law to maintain communal harmony and to preserve the present status of mosques, sought to be reclaimed by Hindus on the ground that they were temples before invaders razed them.
Making it clear that the bench will be examining the "vires (legality), contours and ambit" of the 1991 law and it was imperative to ask other courts to "stay off their hands" till it passed any further orders, the top court said, "In pending suits, the courts will not pass any effective interim or final order, including order of survey, till further orders."
Senior advocate J. Sai Deepak, appearing for a Hindu party, opposed the order restraining all other courts and said the parties should have been heard before such a direction.
The CJI said it was quite natural to ask courts not to pass any order as the Supreme Court was hearing the larger issue.
"Can the trial courts overreach the Supreme Court?" asked the bench and said the apex court was already dealing with the validity of the law.
The bench said if parties insisted, then the matter could be referred to a high court.
Observing that the top court cannot decide the matter without the Centre's response, it asked the Union to file its reply to the pleas and cross ones in four weeks.
The bench also granted another four weeks to other parties to file their rejoinder after the Centre filed its reply.
Earlier, the top court had issued notice to parties, including the Centre, on the lead petition in September 2022.
On Thursday, the apex court also appointed nodal counsel to assist it in the hearing on the pleas, which will be listed after eight weeks. The court appointed advocates Kanu Agarwal, Vishnu Shankar Jain and Ejaz Maqbool as nodal counsel to make compilations on behalf of the Union, the petitioners and the parties supporting the Act, respectively.
When the bench asked: "How many suits are pending now?” One of the advocates for the parties said a total of 18 suits pertaining to 10 mosques were pending in several courts across the country.
"Ultimately, we will have to hear the arguments," the bench said, observing the primary issue was with regard to Sections 3 and 4 of the 1991 law.
While Section 3 deals with the bar of conversion of places of worship, Section 4 pertains to declarations as to the religious character of certain places of worship and the bar of jurisdiction of courts, etc.
The top court also allowed the pleas of various parties, including Muslim bodies, seeking to intervene in the proceedings.
The six pleas pending before the top court have sought the setting aside of Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Act.
The petitioners have contended that these sub-sections of the 1991 law took away the right of judicial remedy to reclaim a place of worship of any person or a religious group.
Various Muslim parties, including the Gyanvapi Mosque management committee, moved the apex court to oppose several pending petitions that challenge the constitutional validity of the 1991 law.
Listing a series of contentious claims made over the years concerning various mosques and dargahs (shrines), including the Shahi Idgah Masjid in Mathura, the Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque near Delhi's Qutub Minar, the Kamal Maula Mosque in Madhya Pradesh, among others, the mosque committee has claimed that the petitions challenging the validity of the Act were filed with "mischievous intent" to facilitate lawsuits against these religious sites.
