SC resumes hearing challenges to Places of Worship Act: The legal battle, explained

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, heard a batch of petitions on Wednesday (February 18), pending since 2020, challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. After initially refusing to stay suits in district courts seeking surveys of places of worship under Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud’s tenure, the apex court pivoted under his successor Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna. On December 12, 2024, a bench comprising Khanna, Justice P V Sanjay Kumar and Justice K V Viswanathan, barred the registration of any further suits in district courts seeking surveys of places of worship, and stayed all “effective interim orders or final orders” in pending suits, until the constitutional question is resolved. The court did not address the constitutional question on Wednesday, but dismissed a request to stay proceedings in a suit before a civil court in Ajmer, Rajasthan that claims that the Ajmer Sharief Dargah is a Hindu temple. Its rationale: that it had only stayed effective orders, not proceedings altogether in such suits. The background The 1991 Act was enacted by the P V Narasimha Rao government in September 1991, during the peak of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement. It freezes the status of all religious places as they existed on August 15, 1947. Section 3 of the Act prohibits the conversion of any place of worship from one religion or sect to another. Section 4 mandates that its religious character shall remain exactly as it was on Independence Day. Section 4(2) abated all pending legal proceedings regarding disputes over converting a place of worship, and bars courts from entertaining any fresh suits. The only exception carved out was for the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute in Ayodhya. The challenge The lead petition, filed by advocate and BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, mounts a multi-pronged challenge to the legislation. On legislative competence, Upadhyay contends that the Centre did not have the power to enact this law because “pilgrimage” and “public order” are State subjects under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, meaning that only the state legislature can legislate on the subject, not the Parliament. In doing so, the petition contends that the Centre has violated the federal structure of the Constitution. It also argues that the Act strips citizens of the right to seek a judicial review, a “basic feature” of the Constitution, by barring them from approaching courts to resolve disputes regarding religious encroachments. The petition also challenges the cut-off date of August 15, 1947, terming it “arbitrary and irrational”. It argues that this date denies Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs the right to restore places of worship that were destroyed or encroached upon by “barbaric invaders” centuries prior. This, the petition claims, violates the fundamental rights to equality and to religion as it bars remedy for one set of communities while at the same time allegedly allowing Muslims to claim properties under the Waqf Act. The defence Several intervenors – such as the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind and the All India Muslim Personal Law Board – have impleaded themselves in the case to defend the Act. Their defence is anchored in the Supreme Court’s 2019 Ayodhya verdict. In that judgment, a five-judge Constitution Bench had said that the Act imposes a “non-derogable obligation” on the State to enforce its commitment to secularism. It had characterised the law as a legislative instrument designed to prevent “retrogression” or a sliding back into historical conflicts. The court had observed that “history and its wrongs shall not be used as instruments to oppress the present and the future.” The respondents argue that the Act is essential to protect the secular fabric of the nation and that reopening these disputes would lead to endless litigation and communal disharmony. The centre’s conspicuous silence The Union government has notably been silent on the matter. The Supreme Court first issued notice on the petition in March 2021. In subsequent hearings throughout 2022 and 2023, the court granted the Centre time to file an affidavit clarifying its stand on the validity of the law. However, the Union government has not yet placed its formal position on record. Effect of the pendency While the constitutional challenge has remained pending in the Supreme Court for over five years, district courts in Uttar Pradesh entertained suits regarding the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah in Mathura, which claimed that these were temples. These courts have held the view that while the 1991 Act bars the conversion of a religious place, it does not bar the ascertainment of its religious character. This interpretation opened the door to court-commissioned surveys, such as the one conducted by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) at Gyanvapi. It was only after the Supreme Court’s stay order on December 12, 2024, that these suits stalled. On January 22, 2026, the apex court disposed of a separate dispute at the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula complex in Madhya Pradesh that had come up before it, tagged with a challenge to the Act. The site is recognised as a Monument of National Importance by the Archaeological Survey of India, and is significant to both Hindus and Muslims as a prayer site. The court permitted an interim arrangement allowing Hindus to offer worship on Basant Panchami and Muslims to offer Friday prayers at the site at separate times, maintaining a status quo of sorts. It also ordered the Madhya Pradesh High Court to decide on the larger legal question about the site. The High Court will resume hearing the matter on Thursday.