In a setback to Hindutva forces wanting to reclaim mosques and dargahs built after demolishing temples in the distant past, the Supreme Court on Monday, February 17, 2025, declined to hear a bunch of petitions questioning the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991.

Deferring the hearing of petitions challenging the Places of Worship Act, 1991, a Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar expressed strong displeasure over the flood of new intervention applications in the matter.

When several lawyers wanted to file new intervention applications, CJI Khanna remarked, "We might not be able to take it up ... There is a limit to which petitions can be filed. Enough is enough. There has to be an end to this." Dismissing all petitions on which no notice has been issued, the Chief Justice clarified that only those petitions raising new legal grounds will be entertained.

On Monday's hearing, the bench noted the large number of intervention applications and a fresh batch of writ petitions either challenging the Act or demanding a strict implementation of the Act. With only a two-judge combination present, the CJI said, "it is a three judge bench matter." The case is now likely to be listed in early April.

The law, enacted in the wake of the Ayodhya movement, prohibits conversion of any place of worship and maintains the religious character of places of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947.

Hearing the challenge to the 1991 Act, the Supreme Court had on Thursday, December 12, 2024, restrained civil courts throughout the country from registering fresh suits challenging ownership and title of any place of worship and ordering surveys of disputed religious places until further orders.

"As the matter is sub-judice, we deem it appropriate to direct that no fresh suits may be filed or registered or proceedings be ordered till further orders of this Court...We also direct that in pending suits, the courts would not pass any effective interim orders or final orders

including orders of survey till the next date of hearing," the bench headed by the CJI said. The bench also comprises Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan.

The order bars civil courts from registering fresh cases. Therefore, the courts cannot also order any survey or seek a report from the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) as they have done in the case of the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi and the mosque in Sambal. These civil cases have claimed these mosques were built after demolishing Hindu temples by Mughal rulers. Significantly, the Supreme Court observed that the court orders in these civil suits could be challenged because they violate the principle of secularism, a basic structure of the Indian Constitution, irrespective of the Places of Worship Act 1991.

The petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the 1991 Act have been pending since 2020. The petitioners have challenged the Act on two grounds. First, it takes away the power of judicial review by nullifying claims that existed when the law passed and banning fresh claims in courts. Second, it is arbitrary to retrospectively fix August 15, 1947, as the cut-off date for determining the religious character of a place of worship.

In 2019, the five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the Ayodhya case opined that the 1991 Act forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The Act was not under challenge in the Ayodhya case. However, the Supreme Court's observation that the Act forms a part of the basic structure of the Constitution will surely help determine the constitutional validity of the Act.

The first petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Act was filed in October 2020 on the grounds that it takes away the power of judicial review and the date has been fixed arbitrarily. Then, in August 2021, five Hindu women filed a suit in Varanasi, petitioning for permission to conduct pooja at the Gyanvapi mosque.

Ironically, when the case reached the Supreme Court in May 2022, the then Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, observed that a survey "may not necessarily fall foul" of the Places of Worship Act. Between 2022 and 2024, six suits were filed in various courts claiming the existence of Hindu temples at sites of mosques and dargas. In three of these cases courts ordered surveys.

Now that the Supreme Court has put a full stop to all court proceedings across the country about claims and counterclaims on the religious character of places of worship, people can temporarily breathe easier until the Court finds a lasting solution to the disturbing problem.