SC stays court proceedings in all masjid-mandir cases

In an important development, the Supreme Court on Thursday restrained till further directions the courts in the country from entertaining fresh lawsuits and passing any effective interim or final orders in pending ones seeking to reclaim religious places, especially mosques and dargahs (a Muslim shrine).

"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," the CJI-led bench said.

The direction of a bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan stalls proceedings in about 18 lawsuits filed by various Hindu parties seeking survey to ascertain original religious character of 10 mosques including Gyanvapi at Varanasi, Shahi Idgah Masjid at Mathura and Shahi Jama Masjid at Sambhal where four persons' lives were snuffed out in clashes.

The special bench 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.

However, the dispute relating to Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid at Ayodhya was kept out of its purview.

There are several cross petitions which 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.

The bench made it clear that it would 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.

"In pending suits, the courts will not pass any effective interim or final order, including order of survey, till further orders," the bench said.

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 to not to pass any order as the Supreme Court was hearing the larger issue.

The bench said if parties insisted then, the matter could be sent to a high court.

"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.

Observing the court couldn't decide the matter without the Centre's response, it asked the government to file its reply to the pleas and cross ones in four weeks.

It also granted a further of four weeks to other parties to file their rejoinder after the Centre filed its reply.

Notably, the bench had issued notice to parties, including the Centre, on the lead petition in September, 2022.

The bench also appointed nodal counsel for assisting it in the hearing on the pleas which would be listed after eight weeks.

During the hearing, the bench asked, "How many suits are pending now".

One of the advocates 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 Section 3 and 4 of the 1991 law.

While Section 3 deals with bar of conversion of places of worship, Section 4 pertains to declaration as to the religious character of certain places of worship and bar of jurisdiction of courts, etc.

The bench also allowed the pleas of various parties including Muslim bodies seeking to intervene in the proceedings.

The top court is seized of about six pleas, including the lead one praying that Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Act be set aside.

Among the various reasons submitted was the contention that these provisions 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.

The mosque committee listed 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, and others.

It, therefore, said the petitions challenging the Act were filed with "mischievous intent" to facilitate lawsuits against these religious sites, which the 1991 Act currently protected.