 |
|
The recent decision by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna to limit the influx of new petitions related to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, highlights a significant development in the ongoing legal battles surrounding religious sites in India. The Act, enacted in 1991, aims to maintain the religious character of places of worship as it stood on August 15, 1947, effectively preventing lawsuits seeking to reclaim or alter the nature of these sites. The CJI's emphatic statement, "Enough is enough. There has to be an end to this," underscores the court's growing weariness with the continuous stream of new petitions challenging the Act's legality and its application to various temple-mosque disputes across the country. This decision signals a clear attempt by the Supreme Court to manage the overwhelming number of cases and potentially bring some closure to a highly contentious and politically sensitive issue.
The Supreme Court's decision to refuse to entertain new petitions, while allowing an intervention petition with additional reasons, demonstrates a calculated strategy to balance the need for judicial review with the imperative to prevent an overwhelming backlog of cases. This approach reflects the court's recognition of the complexities and potential for further polarization inherent in these disputes. The ongoing legal attempts to recover sites claimed to be destroyed Hindu temples have significantly contributed to the importance and urgency surrounding the Places of Worship Act. These attempts, often fueling deep-seated religious and political tensions, have put immense pressure on the judicial system to provide clarity and resolution.
The case initiated by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay questioning the legality of the Act itself has been central to this legal saga. Last year, the court suspended proceedings for 18 lawsuits brought by Hindu parties aiming to regain ownership of 10 mosques, effectively grouping various temple-mosque disputes, including high-profile controversies like the Shahi Idgah-Krishna Janmabhoomi, Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi mosque, and Sambhal mosque disputes. This consolidation of cases was intended to streamline the judicial process, but it also sparked a wave of further petitions, leading to the CJI's recent assertive response. The decision to suspend these proceedings has clearly not been without its critics. The subsequent rush of opposition parties to the Supreme Court, lending their support to the Act, underscores the deeply divisive nature of the issue, highlighting the political ramifications alongside the purely legal ones.
The intervention of political parties like the Congress, a party in power when the Act was enacted, and Asaduddin Owaisi's AIMIM, further underscores the Act's significance within the broader political landscape of India. Their petitions highlight a strategic effort to solidify the Act's legal standing and emphasize its role in fostering religious harmony and preventing potential conflicts. On the other hand, the petition filed on Monday, urging the court to uphold the Act based on the universal right to peaceful living, encapsulates a crucial aspect of the debate—the societal impact of these religious disputes. The emphasis on peace and stability serves as a potent counterpoint to the arguments of those seeking to overturn the Act.
The CJI's statement regarding the limitations on new interventions, emphasizing the allowance only if new grounds are raised, is a crucial aspect of the court's strategy. This approach aims to focus the judicial process on substantial new arguments while simultaneously discouraging a deluge of repetitive petitions. The statement reflects a desire to strike a balance between ensuring due process and managing the overwhelming caseload efficiently. The involvement of senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing the petitioners, and the ongoing wait for a response from the Centre further highlight the complexity of the situation. The postponement of the hearing until the first week of April indicates that the court requires more time to thoroughly consider the implications of all the arguments presented, and to potentially await crucial input from the government.
The Supreme Court's actions reveal a complex interplay of legal, political, and social factors. The court's decision to limit new petitions represents a pragmatic approach to managing a highly sensitive and controversial issue with potentially far-reaching implications. This decision, while likely welcomed by some as a means to bring order to the ongoing legal challenges, will inevitably face continued scrutiny and debate. The upcoming hearing in April will undoubtedly be crucial in shaping the future legal landscape surrounding religious places of worship in India and its impact on the country’s social and political stability.