The Supreme Court has firmly stated that it will not entertain any more petitions concerning the Places of Worship Act, 1991. Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna made it clear that the increasing number of filings must come to an end.
During a hearing, the Chief Justice expressed concern over the rising number of petitions in the case. He remarked that the court had already allowed multiple filings but could not continue to accept new ones indefinitely.
However, the court has agreed to consider intervention petitions that introduce fresh legal arguments, though it has declined to issue notices on new petitions.
The Places of Worship Act was introduced in 1991 to prevent the alteration of religious sites as they stood on August 15, 1947.
This law was enacted to maintain communal harmony and to ensure that disputes over places of worship did not lead to conflicts. The Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi dispute was the only exception to this law.
The legal battle over the Act has gained significance due to ongoing attempts to reclaim temples that were allegedly demolished in the past. Several Hindu groups and right-wing organisations have opposed the law, arguing that it restricts their right to seek legal recourse.
Meanwhile, opposition parties, including the Congress and the All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen (AIMIM), have approached the Supreme Court in support of the law, stating that it upholds peace and social stability.
The original challenge to the Act was filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. Over time, various other petitions have emerged, seeking to reclaim religious sites. In 2024, the Supreme Court put a halt to proceedings in multiple cases filed by Hindu groups, consolidating all temple-mosque disputes into a single legal matter.
Some of the key disputes include the Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi mosque case, the Shahi Idgah-Krishna Janmabhoomi dispute, and issues surrounding the Sambhal mosque.
On February 17, 2025, the Supreme Court held another hearing on the case, during which the Centre remained silent and did not submit a counter-affidavit.
This continued silence has been a source of frustration, as the government had previously assured the court that it was preparing a comprehensive response. Since 2022, the court has issued multiple orders asking the Centre to clarify its stand, but no formal reply has been presented.
The Chief Justice reiterated that while new legal grounds can be introduced, there must be a limit to the number of intervention applications. He emphasised that the court would only entertain filings that bring up previously unaddressed legal points.
During the hearing, senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing the petitioners, pointed out that a response from the Centre was still awaited. The case has now been adjourned, with the next hearing scheduled for the first week of April.
Legal experts and advocates have presented differing perspectives on the matter. Those supporting the Act argue that it is crucial for preventing an increase in religious disputes.
They claim that allowing fresh lawsuits would lead to unnecessary conflicts and disturb social harmony. Many also believe that local court rulings allowing surveys of mosques have been in direct violation of the Act’s provisions.
On the other hand, those challenging the law insist that it unfairly prevents Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs from reclaiming their places of worship. They argue that these sites were forcefully taken over by past rulers and should be returned to their original religious communities.
The Supreme Court has previously made it clear that civil courts cannot register new cases or pass orders on existing ones regarding the reclamation of religious sites.
In December 2024, the court reinforced that Section 3 of the Act aligns with constitutional principles and that disputes over places of worship should not lead to legal battles.
Follow us
