Hearing on Places of Worship Act will be held in the Supreme Court today, who has challenged it and why?

New Delhi: The Supreme Court will hear on Thursday PILs challenging the validity of certain provisions of the Places of Worship Act, 1991. The relevant law states that the religious nature of the places of worship existing on August 15, 1947, will remain the same as it was on that day. It prohibits filing a suit to reclaim a religious place or alter its character. A bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Vishwanathan is likely to hear the case.
Several petitions are pending in the apex court in this regard, one of which has been filed by Ashwini Upadhyay. Upadhyay has requested to repeal sections two, three and four of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. One of the arguments made in the petition is that these provisions take away the right of an individual or religious group to seek judicial redress to reclaim a place of worship.

Marxist Communist Party and Maharashtra MLA Jitendra Satish Awhad have also filed petitions against several pending petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, saying the law is a threat to public order, fraternity, unity and Protects secularism.

The hearing of the case will take place in the backdrop of several lawsuits filed in various courts, including those related to the Gyanvapi Masjid in Varanasi, the Shahi Idgah Mosque in Mathura and the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal. In these cases, it has been claimed that these sites were built after the destruction of ancient temples and Hindus have been requested to be allowed to worship there.

What argument did the Muslim side give?

In most of these cases, the Muslim side has cited the 1991 law and argued that such cases are not acceptable. Six petitions, including one filed by former Rajya Sabha member Subramanian Swamy, have been filed against the provisions of this law.
While Swamy wants the top court to re-interpret certain provisions to enable Hindus to lay claim to the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah Mosque in Mathura, Upadhyay claimed that the entire law is unconstitutional and would have to be reconsidered. There is no question of interpretation.