Owaisi's petition, submitted on December 17, 2024, through advocate Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, emphasizes the necessity of upholding the Act to prevent alterations to the religious nature of sites across the country. The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, has agreed to tag this plea with existing cases concerning the same Act, consolidating them for the upcoming hearing.
The Places of Worship Act prohibits the conversion of any place of worship and ensures the preservation of its religious character as it stood on the designated historical date. Notably, the Act excludes the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya, which was the subject of separate litigation.
In recent years, the Act has faced challenges from various quarters. Petitioners, including political figures and members of erstwhile royal families, argue that the legislation unjustly restricts their ability to reclaim religious sites allegedly altered during historical invasions. They contend that the Act imposes a unilateral constraint on Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, and Sikh communities, while exempting others.
Conversely, Muslim organizations, such as the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, assert that nullifying the Act could disrupt communal harmony and destabilize the nation's social fabric. They caution that revisiting historical disputes may reignite fears among minority communities and undermine the secular principles enshrined in the Constitution.
The Supreme Court's 2019 verdict on the Ayodhya dispute underscored the significance of the Places of Worship Act, describing it as a measure that upholds the secular fabric of the nation. The judgment highlighted the Act's role in fostering equality and adhering to the principle of non-retrogression, which discourages reopening settled issues.
Despite the Act's intent to maintain the status quo of religious sites, several legal challenges have emerged. Hindu petitioners, including Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders and members of royal lineages, have filed petitions seeking the right to restore religious sites to their pre-invasion status. They argue that the Act's cut-off date lacks justification and that it infringes upon their fundamental rights to worship.
In response to these challenges, the Supreme Court, on December 12, issued a directive preventing all courts from entertaining new suits or issuing orders in pending cases aimed at reclaiming religious places, particularly mosques and dargahs, until a final decision is reached. This move was intended to maintain communal harmony and prevent legal actions that could alter the status of existing places of worship.
Owaisi's petition aligns with the stance of Muslim groups advocating for the strict implementation of the 1991 law. His plea references instances where courts have ordered surveys of mosques based on petitions from Hindu litigants, actions he views as contrary to the Act's provisions. By seeking the Supreme Court's intervention, Owaisi aims to ensure that the religious character of places of worship remains as it was on the historical date, thereby preventing communal discord.