Gurushivam: Put Up Initial Bio More To Come - done

2026-04-19T16:30:42Z

Put Up Initial Bio More To Come - done

New page

{{Short description|2020 Supreme Court case about Places of Worship Act}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2026}}
{{Use Indian English|date=July 2025}}
{{Infobox court case
| start date = 2020
| image = Emblem of the Supreme Court of India 2025.svg
| court = [[Supreme Court of India]]
| citations = {{Abbr|WP|Writ Petition}} (Civil) No. 1246 of 2020
| full name = Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India & Ors.
| dates_decided =
| judges = [[Sanjiv Khanna]] (Chief Justice), [[K. V. Viswanathan]], [[P. V. Sanjay Kumar]]
| prior_history =
| holding =
| related actions = [[2019 Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya dispute]]
| court_membership =
| laws_applied = [[Constitution of India]], Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991
}}

'''''Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India''','' [[Writ petition|WP]] (Civil) 1246/2020'','' also known as the '''Places of Worship Act case''', is an ongoing litigation before the [[Supreme Court of India]] examining the constitutional validity of the [[Places of Worship Act, 1991]], which prohibits the conversion of any place of worship and provides for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship. The lead petition, filed by advocate and [[Bharatiya Janata Party|BJP]] leader [[Ashwini Upadhyay|Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay]], challenges the Sections 2–4 of the act arguing that the law infringes on religious freedom and constitutional [[Secularism in India|secularism]]. The case has significant implications for several ongoing disputes over religious sites in India, including the [[Gyanvapi Mosque|Gyanvapi mosque]] in [[Varanasi]] and the [[Shahi Eidgah mosque (Mathura)|Shahi Eidgah mosque]] in [[Mathura]].

== Background ==
The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, was enacted by the [[P. V. Narasimha Rao]] government during the peak of the [[Ram Janmabhoomi]] movement.<ref name="venkataramanan-2019">{{Cite news |last=Venkataramanan |first=K. |date=2019-11-16 |title=What does the Places of Worship Act protect? |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/what-does-the-places-of-worship-act-protect/article61615043.ece |access-date=2025-07-31 |work=The Hindu |language=en-IN}}</ref> The Act's stated objective was to freeze the status of all places of worship as they were on 15 August 1947, and to prevent future disputes over their religious character.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2024-12-13 |title=Explained: India’s controversial Places of Worship Act |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwypgp8gnjjo |access-date=2025-07-31 |work=BBC News |language=en}}</ref> Section 3 of the Act bars the conversion of a place of worship of any religious denomination into a place of worship of a different religious denomination. Section 4 declares that the religious character of a place of worship shall continue to be the same as it was on the date of India's independence.<ref name="venkataramanan-2019" /> The only exception made in the Act, under Section 5, was for the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in [[Ayodhya]].<ref name=":0">{{Cite news |date=2019-10-16 |title=Ayodhya dispute: The complex legal history of India's holy site |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-50065277 |access-date=2025-07-31 |work=BBC News |language=en}}</ref> In its 2019 [[2019 Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya dispute|verdict on the Ayodhya dispute]], a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, while awarding the disputed site for the construction of a Ram temple, had commented on the 1991 Act.<ref name=":0" /> The Court stated that the Act "is a legislative instrument designed to protect the secular features of the Indian polity, which is one of the basic features of the Constitution."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Dhawan |first=Pranav |last2=Maniktalaare |first2=Parth |date=2019-12-11 |title=The Ayodhya Ruling and the Rule of Law – RightsViews |url=https://blogs.cuit.columbia.edu/rightsviews/2019/12/11/the-ayodhya-ruling-and-the-rule-of-law/ |access-date=2025-07-31 |language=en-US}}</ref>

== Legal challenge and arguments ==
In June 2020, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay filed a writ petition challenging Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Places of Worship Act, 1991, with several other similar petitions subsequently filed and tagged with the main case.<ref name="SCObserver_WP_Summary">{{cite web |title=Writ Petition Summary—Constitutionality of the Places of Worship Act |url=https://www.scobserver.in/reports/writ-petition-summary-3/ |access-date=30 July 2025 |publisher=Supreme Court Observer}}</ref> The petitioners argue that the Act infringes on the fundamental rights to equality ([[Article 14 of the Constitution of India|Article 14]]), non-discrimination ([[Article 15 of the Constitution of India|Article 15]]), and freedom of religion ([[Article 25 of the Constitution of India|Articles 25]] and [[Article 26 of the Constitution of India|26]]).<ref name="SCObserver_WP_Summary" /> They further contend that the Act creates an unconstitutional bar on [[judicial review]], which is a basic feature of the Constitution, by preventing courts from hearing claims over places of worship converted before 1947.<ref name="virmani-2023">{{Cite web |last=Virmani |first=Luv |date=2023-07-15 |title=Is The Places of Worship Act, 1991 constitutional? |url=https://www.barandbench.com/columns/is-the-places-of-worship-special-provisions-act-1991-constitutional |access-date=2025-07-31 |website=Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news |language=en}}</ref> The challenge also targets the choice of 15 August 1947 as an "arbitrary and irrational" cut-off date, which petitioners claim retroactively validates historical wrongs committed against their religious sites.<ref name="SCObserver_Background3">{{cite web |title=Constitutionality of the Places of Worship Act - Case Background |url=https://www.scobserver.in/cases/constitutionality-of-the-places-of-worship-act-case-background-ashwini-kumar-upadhyay-union-of-india/ |access-date=30 July 2025 |publisher=Supreme Court Observer}}</ref><ref name="virmani-2023" /> The petitions also question the [[Parliament of India]]'s legislative competence to make laws on "pilgrimages", a subject on the State List of the Constitution's Seventh Schedule, and assert that the Act violates secularism by creating an exception for the Ayodhya dispute while denying similar recourse to other communities.<ref name="SCObserver_WP_Summary" /><ref name="virmani-2023" />

=== Proceedings ===
The Supreme Court issued notice to the [[Government of India]] on the petition in March 2021. Since then, the case has been heard by multiple benches. The Union government has repeatedly sought extensions to file a "comprehensive" counter-affidavit detailing its stance on the law, but as of early 2025, it had not yet done so. Several political parties and Muslim organizations, including the [[Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind]] and the [[All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen]], have intervened in the case, supporting the Act and arguing that it is essential for maintaining communal harmony.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Salam |first=Ziya Us |date=2024-12-12 |title=Muslim bodies welcome Supreme Court’s interim order on Places of Worship Act |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/muslim-bodies-welcome-supreme-courts-interim-order-on-places-of-worship-act/article68978684.ece |access-date=2025-07-31 |work=The Hindu |language=en-IN}}</ref> In January 2024, a bench headed by Chief Justice [[D. Y. Chandrachud]] referred the pleas to a three-judge bench.<ref name="rajagopal-2024">{{Cite news |last=Rajagopal |first=Krishnadas |date=2024-12-07 |title=CJI-led Special Bench to hear challenges against Places of Worship Act on December 12 |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sc-constitutes-special-bench-headed-by-cji-to-hear-challenges-to-pow-act/article68957904.ece |access-date=2025-07-31 |work=The Hindu |language=en-IN}}</ref> In subsequent hearings, the court expressed displeasure at the filing of numerous new petitions and intervention applications, with the Chief Justice stating, "We cannot keep these petitions pending endlessly. There has to be an end to this."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Roy |first=Debayan |date=2025-02-17 |title=There should be a limit to intervention applications in Places of Worship Act challenge: Supreme Court |url=https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/there-should-be-a-limit-to-intervention-applications-in-places-of-worship-act-challenge-supreme-court |access-date=2025-07-31 |website=Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news |language=en}}</ref> The court has indicated it will only entertain applications that raise new legal grounds.<ref name=":1">{{Cite news |last=Rajagopal |first=Krishnadas |date=2025-02-17 |title=Places of Worship case put off; Centre yet to file response |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/places-of-worship-act-case-may-be-taken-up-in-april-cji-indicates/article69228952.ece |access-date=2025-07-31 |work=The Hindu |language=en-IN}}</ref>

== Significance and implications ==
The case is highly anticipated due to its far-reaching implications.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2022-05-17 |title=Gyanvapi masjid: India dispute could become a religious flashpoint |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-61476741 |access-date=2025-07-31 |work=BBC News |language=en}}</ref> A decision to strike down the Act or dilute its provisions could enable further litigation aimed at reclaiming religious sites across the country, similar to the Ayodhya dispute. Proponents of the Act argue that its repeal would lead to widespread communal conflict and disturb social harmony.<ref name=":1" /> Conversely, those challenging the Act argue that it denies justice and perpetuates historical wrongs.<ref name=":1" /> The case is seen as a major test for the constitutional principles of secularism, equality, and judicial review in India.<ref name="rajagopal-2024" /> The government's prolonged delay in clarifying its official stance has also been a significant point of discussion.<ref name="rajagopal-2024" />

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

{{SCI-cases}}

[[Category:Indian case law]]
[[Category:Supreme Court of India cases in 2020]]
[[Category:2020 in Indian law]]
[[Category:Religious controversies in India]]

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India - Revision history

Gurushivam: Put Up Initial Bio More To Come - done