Challenges to places of worship Act & Ayodhya verdict

At least three suits and a writ petition have been filed in the Supreme Court demanding restoration of ancient temples which were claimed to have been destroyed and replace by Islamic religious structures. This could be termed as a consequence of the 2019 verdict on the Ayodhya dispute.

New Delhi:A number of cases have been filed in courts in North India seeking restoration of Hindu shrines that were demolished at various locations. Now, this issue assumes significance as the Supreme Court on Friday had issued notices to the Centre following a plea made by the BJP spokesperson Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who had challenged the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.

The Act empowers suits to be filed on various religious structures, similar to the Ayodhya case and could have a huge impact throughout the nation.

There are also many suits pending in various courts:

Sri Krishna Janmasthan

On September 25, 2020, a case was filed before a Civil Judge, Senior Division at Mathura on behalf of child deity Bhagwan Shri Krishna Virajman following the Ayodhya verdict. It was Advocate Ranjana Agnihotri who had filed the suit demanding that the Shahi Idgah Mosque located adjacent to the Shri Krishna Temple Complex in the city be removed. Six devotees have also turned plaintiffs in the suits which claim ownership of 13.37 acres of land believed to be the birthplace of Lord Krishna.

According to the petitioner, the Shahi Idgah Mosque was built following the demolition of a temple by Mughal ruler Aurangazeb. However, Additional District Judge, Chhaya Sharma had dismissed the suit stating that the petitioner doesn't have a locus standi in the issue. On the other hand, an appeal was filed challenging the dismissal which is now pending in the Mathura District Court.

In connection with this issue, another plea under Article 226 which was filed by Advocate Mahek Maheshwari is now pending in Allahabad High Court.

Hindu, Jain temples in the Qutub Minar complex

It has been claimed that South Delhi's famed minaret 'Qutub Minar' built by Qutb-ud-din Aibak in the 12th century had comprised of a complex of Hindu and Jain temples. On 9 December 2020, a suit was also filed in this regard before a Civil Judge, Senior Division at Saket District Court. The case was filed on behalf of Lord Vishnu and Lord Rishabh Dev deities with the demand that the complex is restored and rights are granted towards puja and darshan.

Advocate Ranjana Agnihotri who had been involved with the suit on Sri Krishna Janmasthan is a plaintiff in the case along with Advocate Hari Shankar Jain.

Varanasi’s Gyanvapi Mosque

On 19 February 2021, a third suit was filed against the Gyanvapi Mosque before the Civil Court, Senior Division in Varanasi which sought the restoration of an ancient temple of Lord Adi Visheshwar which had been demolished at the site. It is claimed that a Jyotirlingam had been housed in the temple which was desecrated in 1669 by Aurangazeb, a Mughal ruler for the construction of the Gyanvapi Mosque.

Advocates Hari Shankar Jain and Pankaj Kumar Verma had filed the plaints against the Gyanvapi Mosque.

The challenge to The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act

As mentioned earlier, the biggest hindrance to the suits listed above is the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act which had been enacted in 1991 by the Indian Parliament. The Act was introduced during the Ram Janmabhoomi movement in a bid to safeguard all religious structures as they existed on August 15, 1947.

So, under the Act, Court's are barred from entertaining petitions regarding the places of worship and that such cases already pending would stand suspended.

However, in the case of Ram Janmabhoomi, this Act was not applicable hence Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court could look into the issue. It was in 2019 that the Supreme Court had invoked the law awarding the disputed land in Ayodhya to Ram Lalla.

The Supreme Court also made it clear that similar cases pertaining to other sites cannot be entertained given the Act. To this, Vishwa Bhadra Pujari Purohit Mahasangh and Upadhyay filed two petitions challenging the law. It was in this connection that the Supreme Court on Friday had issued notice to the Central Government.