IN AN important development, the Supreme Court onThursday 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 CJIled bench said. The direction of a bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and K V 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 groundthattheyweretemples before invaders razed them.

 

The bench made itclear that it would be examining the “vires (legality), contours and ambit” of the 1991 law and it was imperative to ask other courts to“stayofftheirhands” tillitpassedanyfurtherorders. “Inpendingsuits,thecourts willnotpassanyeffectiveinterim or final order, including order of survey, till further orders,” the bench said. Senior advocate J Sai Deepak,appearingforaHindu party, opposed the order restrainingallothercourtsand said the parties should have beenheardbeforesuchadirection.

 

The CJI said it was quite natural to ask courts to not to passanyorderas theSupreme 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 dealingwiththe validity ofthe law. Observing the court couldn’t decide the matter without theCentre’s response, it asked thegovernmenttofileits 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 issuednoticetoparties,includingtheCentre,ontheleadpetition in September, 2022.