Places Of Worship Act Not Applicable In Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Case: What Court Said
A court in Mathura, Uttar Pradesh has held that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991 is not applicable in the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute.
The court noted on Thursday that the compromise decree dividing the disputed land was signed in 1968, much before the law was enacted.
1968 compromise agreement? ?
In 1968 the Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan and the Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah had entered into a compromise agreement and the temple authority had conceded the contentious portion of land to the Idgah on which the mosque stands.
However, a set of petitions filed recently argued that the land was owned by the deity Lord Shri Krishna Virajman and the Trust had no right to strike such a deal.
So far, 11 suits with almost an identical demand (the shifting of the Shahi Masjid Idgah) have been filed in different courts of Mathura.
But the Muslim side have argued that the Gyanvapi Masjid is protected under the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.?
Places of worship act 1991
Section 4 of the act bars filing of any suit or initiating any other legal proceeding for a conversion of the religious character of any place of worship, as existing on August 15, 1947.
The Places of Worship Act prohibits the conversion of the religious character of a place of worship and to maintain the status quo as it was at the time of India's Independence. The Act says ¡°An Act to prohibit conversion of any place of worship and to provide for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on the 15th day of August, 1947, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.¡±
Ascertaining the religious character of a place not barred??
The Supreme Court Friday observed that ascertaining the religious character of a place of worship is not barred under the Places of Worship Act of 1991.
A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant, and PS Narasimha made the important observation during an hour-long hearing of the Gyanvapi mosque dispute and said that it has dealt with provisions of the Places of Worship Act in its 2019 Ayodhya verdict and section 3 does not expressly bar ascertaining of the religious character of the place of worship.
¡°We have dealt with the provisions in our Ayodhya verdict. The ascertainment of the religious character of the place of worship is not expressly barred¡±, the bench said and also clarified that it is not its opinion but is in dialogue with the parties.
Justice Chandrachud, who made the observation, was also part of the five-judge bench that delivered its verdict on the Ayodhya dispute in 2019.
For more on news, sports and current affairs from around the world, please visit?Indiatimes News.
