'Stay' on Places of Worship Act Suits: What Took Supreme Court So Long?

The Supreme Court has ordered that no further suits can be registered against the Act till further orders.

By ‘staying everything’, the Supreme Court has done what could have been before when the matter was being heard by the former Chief Justice, DY Chandrachud.

(Photo: Vibhushita Singh/The Quint)

On 12 December, the Supreme Court stepped in to water down the communal fires across the country by ordering that no further suits can be registered against places of worship till further orders from the court.

"As the matter is sub-judice before this court, we deem it appropriate to direct that while suits may be filed, no suits would be registered and proceedings undertaken till further orders of this court. We also direct that in the pending suits, the courts would not pass any effective interim orders or final orders, including orders of survey till the next date of hearing." 

A special bench consisting of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a batch of petitions questioning the constitutional validity of the 1991 Act, which prohibits the conversion of the religious character of places of worship from their status as of 15 August 1947.

Although it is an interim order, it is significant in nature. By ‘staying everything’, the court has done what could have been before when the Gyanvapi matter was being heard by DY Chandrachud, the former chief justice. 

However, in the said order, the Supreme Court refused to stay the proceedings in the suits which are presently pending against places of worship like mosques and dargahs. The Union government has been directed to file its counter-affidavit in the petitions which question the Places of Worship Act.

The Aftermath of the Babri Masjid Judgment

After the Babri Masjid-Ayodhya dispute judgment in M Siddiq (D) vs. Mahant Suresh Das and Ors (2019), there have been many instances where the origin of places of worship – mosques in particular – have been the subject of litigation before various courts nationwide. It is pertinent to state that in the Babri Masjid judgment (2019), the Supreme Court had upheld the Places of Worship Act. 

Recently, former judge Rohinton Nariman criticised the practice of filing such suits against mosques and dargahs – and said that it was creating communal disharmony across the country.

Speaking at a lecture organised by the Ahmadi Foundation on the topic "Secularism and the Indian Constitution", Justice Nariman said:  

"We find today, like hydra-heads popping up all over the country, there is suit after suit filed all over the place, not only concerning mosques, but also dargahs. According to me, the only way of countering this – because all this can lead to communal tension and disharmony, contrary to what is envisaged both in our Constitution and the Places of Worship Act – the only way to scotch all this and cauterise all these hydra-heads is by applying these five pages in the (Babri) judgment and having it read out before each district and high court because these five pages are a declaration of law by the Supreme Court which is binding on them..." 

The Pending Suits: A Snapshot of Controversies

The more recent example is the claims of an ancient temple dedicated to Lord Kalki in the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, where the court ordered a survey on the same day, causing communal tensions.

Other notable cases include the Gyanvapi-Kashi Vishwanath dispute in Varanasi, where Hindu claimants seek restoration of a temple allegedly destroyed during Aurangzeb's reign, and the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute in Mathura, where petitioners claim the mosque was built on Krishna’s birthplace. Both matters remain contentious and are pending in lower courts and the Allahabad High Court. 

Other significant disputes in Uttar Pradesh include the Teelay Wali Masjid in Lucknow, with Hindu plaintiffs asserting historical rights over the site; the Shamshi Masjid in Badaun; and Atala Masjid in Jaunpur.

Cases outside Uttar Pradesh include the Ajmer Sharif Dargah in Rajasthan, where petitioners allege the site was originally a Mahadev temple, and the Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque near Qutub Minar in Delhi, claimed to have been built over Hindu and Jain temples. 

Further disputes involve the Kamal Maula Mosque in Bhojshala, Madhya Pradesh, where litigants seek a scientific survey to determine its religious character, and the Jama Masjid and Dargah Shaikh Salim Chishti in Fatehpur Sikri, alleged to be encroachments on a Hindu temple complex.

The pending cases, fuelled by religious sensitivities and historical grievances, underscore the need for judicial clarity on the interplay between the 1991 Act and the claims for restoration of religious sites. The Supreme Court’s intervention aims to ensure legal consistency and communal harmony until the validity of the Act is resolved. 

The Larger Question Before the Court: The Validity of the Places of Worship Act

Now, the Supreme Court has to consider the validity of the Places of Worship Act, 1991 – which is the main subject matter.

The Act was brought about to prohibit the conversion of any place of worship and maintain its religious character as it existed on 15 August 1947. It prohibits any such litigation by virtue of Section 3 and Section 4 of the Act. 

Section 3 prohibits the conversion of any place of worship, and Section 4 states that “any suit, appeal or other proceeding” connected with the conversion of “the religious character” of a place of worship as it existed on 15 August 1947 pending “shall abate” and will not be considered by any court, tribunal, or other authority. 

Section 5 of the 1991 Act states that “nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the place or place of worship commonly known as Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid situated in Ayodhya in the state of Uttar Pradesh and to any suit, appeal or other proceeding relating to the said place or place of worship”. 

The Act has been the central theme of controversy since the last decade.

In 2021, the Supreme Court had issued notice on a PIL filed by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay, challenging the constitutional validity of the Act inasmuch as it bars remedies against illegal encroachment on the places of worship and pilgrimages prior to 15 August 1947.

In the said petition, it was contended that Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Places of Worship Act take away the rights of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs to reclaim their places of worship through courts. 

District courts have also passed numerous orders allowing surveys of religious places (mosques) based on the claim that there existed another religious structure (temple) before. 

Key Events Leading to the Current Intervention

The sequence of events concerning disputes over religious structures is as follows: 

• On 12 March 2021, a Division Bench led by the then Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, issued a notice in the matter.  

• In May 2022, during a hearing on permitting a survey of the Gyanvapi Masjid in Varanasi, Justice DY Chandrachud observed that while determining the “religious character” of a place of worship was not barred by the Places of Worship Act, 1991, the conversion of such places remained prohibited. 

• In November 2024, deadly violence erupted in Sambhal following a district court’s order for a survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid. Shortly after, another district court issued notice in a civil suit claiming the existence of a Hindu temple beneath the dargah of Sufi saint Moinuddin Chishti in Ajmer. 

• On 6 December 2024, after a district court directed the registration of a suit challenging the existence of a Hindu temple under the Atala Mosque in Jaunpur, the mosque committee approached the Allahabad High Court to contest the order. 

• On 7 December 2024, Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna constituted a Special Bench comprising Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan to address the matter, scheduling the hearing for 12 December 2024. 

What Lies Ahead?

The next date of hearing is scheduled for next year in February 2025. As of today, the Places of Worship Act exists – and it clearly bars any such litigation which disturbs the status quo and the mandate of Section 4 of the Act.

The Supreme Court's recent order is a crucial step in preventing the escalation of communal tensions through litigation related to religious sites. By staying all proceedings that challenge the status quo of places of worship, the court has effectively halted a tide of litigation that threatened to deepen divisions within the country.

This intervention not only preserves legal consistency but also helps safeguard the secular fabric of Indian society, ensuring that the rule of law prevails over divisive agendas. 

Moreover, the court has taken an action that should have been undertaken earlier when the Gyanvapi matter was being heard by Justice Chandrachud. The Places of Worship Act is very clear in its intent and application, yet the absence of an immediate judicial intervention in cases like Gyanvapi allowed the litigation to spiral out of control, causing unnecessary communal strife.

By intervening decisively now, the court has reinforced the legal clarity on this matter and provided much-needed direction, which had been lacking in earlier proceedings. This step is a long-awaited move to ensure that the provisions of the Act are respected, preventing further harm to the country's communal harmony.

(Areeb Uddin Ahmed is an advocate practicing at the Allahabad High Court. He writes on various legal developments. This is an opinion piece, and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)