Supreme Court accept plea to Challenge Places of Worship act 1991

Supreme Court accept plea to Challenge Places of Worship act 1991

Supreme Court accept plea to Challenge Places of Worship act 1991 . On 09 September 2022 Indian SC accepted a case challenging controversial PWA 1991. This plea is posted by Pandit Devkinandan Thakur ji and Ex IAS officer Sanjay Dixit of Jaipur Dialogues. This act was passed in both National Assembly where ruling Congress party had full majority. PV Narsimha Rao was PM of India. Under the places of PWA act 1991 the Worship places since 1947 will remain same forever and no one challenge them in any Court. article 3 & 4 are very objectionable to Sanatan Community. Under Section 3 of the PWA 1991 says: “No person shall convert any place of Worship of any religious denomination or any section thereof into a place of worship of a different section of the same religious denomination or of a different religious denomination or any section thereof.”

This section of Act is to stop converting any prayer places on another religion Pooja places. Though In 1972 SC already clearly said that "Once a Sanatan temple will always remain same until idols is broken or Vishrjit and new idol is not replaced with Pran Patisha (A form of worship ;in sanatan religion follower community  to put new idol/Statues of God in Temple). So this article 3 of act is not favourable our Hindu community according to Indian constitutional right given to all religion. and next article 4 is more hurting Hindus this article "bars Hindu community to challenge any religion worship places broken by Muslims attackers in India ,in any court of India." It is clearly violation of constitutional rights.

Uma Bharti Remark in Loksabha on passing PWA in 1991 is itself says how harmful this act was. in her words "Was not the intention of Aurangzeb behind leaving remnants of the temple at the site of the mosque to keep reminding Hindus of their historical fate and to remind coming generations of Muslims of their past glory and power?”

Now, the plea accepted by Supreme Court of India on this has given a ray of hope to Gyanwapi Temple and Matura Krishna Janmabhumi case. If court Verdicts, this law is violating rights on one community and benefits others. In that case the road of Getting 40,000 temples including Gyanwapi Shiv Temple and Krishna janmbhumi temple will be clear. At least for Banaras and Mathura case in SC of India will be impacted from this order. If hearing goes long and court decide to continue with this Anti Hindu law then Hindu challenging Mathura and Varanasi Temple case will have to face defeat. As in Vishwanath Temple case, archaeological survey under court guidelines, found Shivling and signs of Hindu temple inside the current so called Mosque. Even the walls of this prayer place of Muslims has old wall of temple and all signs of an ancient vishwanth temple. Case is still going on.

Reasons of passing Places of worship act 1991 and Supreme Court role now.

1- In 1991, Babri Masjid was hot topic and opposition party BJP was taking up this issue Very seriously. Under Lal Krishna Advani and VHP leaders this issue has become headache for anti Hindu Nonadministrative. So they excluded Babri case from worship act but stopped all possible opportunities for Hindus for getting all temples and worship places broken or captured by Muslims. 

 

2- Congress always been anti Hindu party and Muslim vote bank policy has been core agenda. This act was completely a Muslim appeasement. Through this act, they passed the message to Muslim community that they may go to any length to appeasing them. In fact this law was completely against the rule book of India which gives equal rights and a right to go Higher courts if they feel their rights are being breached.

3- Congress government thought that this new law of places of worship act 1991 will stop all fight between 2 communities. But we have seen just opposite of it in last 3 decades. 

Role of SC decision: As I spoke a High court lawyer ;this question and he firmly said " This law breaches rights of one society and unconstitutional. I am surprised why current administration not challenged it the Supreme court of India if not having majority to make it nullified. This case on marit goes in favor of petitioner, but we don't know what honorable SC judges are thinking, as recently we have seen many such surprising verdicts including Nupur Sharma case under justice Suryakant and Padriwala honorable Judges of SC. "

It seems Chief Justice decided to take it on priority basis and asked Modi Government to reply within 2 weeks. Usually Court offers minimum 4 weeks time to submit the answer. Hopefully before retirement of honorable Chief Justice U.U. Lalit, this case get solved.

 

x