To argue against the barbarian invaders in the Supreme Court, the Center asked to respond

To argue against 'barbarian invaders' in Supreme Court, center asked to respond

Supreme Court bench notified Center of plea filed by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court on Friday asked for the Centre’s response to a plea filed before it challenging the validity of certain provisions of a 1991 law, which prohibit the filing of legal action to recover a place of worship or to request a change. character compared to what prevailed on August 15, 1947.

The petition alleges that the 1991 law creates an “arbitrary and irrational retrospective deadline” of August 15, 1947 to maintain the character of places of worship or pilgrimage against encroachments by “barbaric fundamentalist invaders and transgressors.” .

A bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde and Judge AS Bopanna notified the Center of the plea filed by BJP chief and lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay, requesting that sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Places of Worship Act 1991 ( special provisions) are fixed. aside on the ground in particular that these provisions deprive the right of judicial recourse to claim a place of worship from any person or to a religious group.

Senior lawyer Gopal Subramaniyan appeared in court for the petitioner.

The law made only one exception – on the dispute over the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Mosque in Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh.

The new plea takes on all its importance because some Hindu groups are constantly demanding to recover religious places in Mathura and Kashi, which are prohibited by the law of 1991.

The provisions not only violate the right to equality and life, but also violate the principles of secularism, which is an integral part of the preamble and the basic structure of the Constitution, the plea said.

The DIP claims that the provisions of the law “not only contravene Articles 14 (equality), 15 (prohibits discrimination of Indians on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth) , 21 (protection of life and individual freedom)., 25 (freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion), 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs) and 29 (protection of minority interests) , but also violate the principles of secularism, which is an integral part of the Preamble and basic structure of the Constitution “.

PIL maintains that the Center has banned remedies against unlawful encroachment on places of worship and pilgrimage by Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs, who cannot sue or go to a high court.

The petitioner asked the court for a declaration that the provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991 are null and void and unconstitutional for violation of the fundamental rights to equality, to practice one’s religion and to maintain religious places, between other. others, as the law validates “places of worship” illegally built by barbarian invaders.

The plea alleges that the restriction on moving a court is contrary to the principle of the rule of law and secularism, and adds that “if the Ayodhya case had not been decided by the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court on the 9th November 2019, Hindus were reportedly deprived of justice even after 500 years of demolition of the temple.

“The Center, by creating contested sections, has, without resolving any disputes through judicial proceedings, terminated the prosecution / proceeding, which is ‘in itself’ unconstitutional and beyond its power to legislate.

“In addition, the contested provisions cannot be imposed with retroactive effect and legal recourse in the event of a dispute in progress, which has arisen or has arisen cannot be prohibited. Nor can the center close the doors of first instance courts, appellate courts and constitutional courts for aggrieved Hindus, Jains and Buddhists and Sikhs or withdraw power from higher courts and the Supreme Court. , conferred under Articles 226 and 32, ”he said.

Also previously, the “Vishwa Bhadra Pujari Purohit Mahasangh” filed another Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition, asking for instructions to declare section 4 of the law ultra vires.

(Except for the title, this story was not edited by NDTV staff and is posted from a syndicated feed.)