Gyanvapi Mosque. |Photo courtesy of ANI
The Indian National Congress (INC), through its general secretary KC Venugopal, has asked the Supreme Court to intervene in the pending challenge to the Places of Worship Act, 1991, saying that secularism has developed in India as part of the nationalism and freedom movement. I moved it.
The INC said the Act of Parliament “reflects the mandate of the people of India”. The Central Act preserves the character of religious places as they existed on August 15, 1947, when India achieved independence.
The 139-year-old party, which heads the opposition in parliament, said it was the chief architect of the law when it was passed in the 10th parliament.
“At the time of passage of the Places of Worship Act (POWA), the majority in the 10th Parliament was the applicant (INC) and the Janata Dal Party,” the party said in a document. The intervention application was filed through advocate Abhishek Jebaraj.
In fact, this law was conceived before 1991 and was part of the election manifesto for the parliamentary elections of the then INC.
“POWA is essential to safeguard India’s secularism and this challenge appears to be a deliberate and malicious attempt to undermine the established principles of secularism,” the INC said.
The party said it wanted to intervene in the Supreme Court to highlight POWA’s constitutional and social importance.
“The INC is concerned that any changes in the law may jeopardize the communal harmony and secular fabric of India, thereby threatening the sovereignty and integrity of the nation,” the application said. It is written.
The party cited the Supreme Court’s own words in its judgment, saying, “Indian secularism evolved as part of a nationalism and freedom movement that guaranteed the protection of minorities and the neutrality of the state towards all religions.” did.
The party defended POWA, saying the law promotes the right to religious freedom and is an established fundamental feature of the constitution.
“POWA is essentially related to the obligations of a secular state,” the INC quoted from the 2019 Ramjanmabhoomi case judgment.
On December 12, a special bench of the Supreme Court of India headed by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna registered a new suit by a civil court seeking to “reclaim” a temple destroyed by Mughal “invaders” in the 16th century. prohibits them from making orders or issuing orders in pending litigation. . The freezing order was passed while agreeing to hear a petition questioning the validity of the 1991 Act. The Chief Justice had made it clear that civil court prohibitions include orders to inspect the premises of religious institutions.
Late last year, prominent figures representing minority organizations, political parties and senior advocates AM Singhvi, P. Wilson and Raju Ramachandran approached the Supreme Court seeking protection of the Act. filed a lawsuit.
They argued that the 1991 Act stood as a strong bulwark against the proliferation of litigation that was ultimately intended to pave the way for setbacks and communal tensions. They argue that the suit and interim order passed by the district court, including the inspection of the mosque site, is in direct violation of Section 3 of the Act, which prohibits conversion of any place of worship, and Section 4 of the Act, which imposes positive obligations. He pointed out that he was doing it. To maintain the religious character of all places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947.
issued – January 16, 2025 5:45 PM IST
