The top court's order comes in light of the various petitons challenging the constitutionality of the act as well as the ongoing disputes regarding the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple dispute in Mathura and other suits.

The matter was heard by a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna which was hearing writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship Act of 1991.

READ | Supreme Court Stays Fresh Pleas Challenging 1991 Places Of Worship Law

What Is The Places Of Worship Act?

"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"

The Places of Worship Act 1991 states that the nature of all places of worship, barring Ayodhya, shall remain as they were on August 15, 1947.

Sections 1 and 2 of the act pertain to the title and definitions of the law. However, Sections 3 and 4 refer to a ban on conversion and abatement of all legal proceedings against places of worship in all courts.

READ | Gyanvapi To Hubballi: Can Places Of Worship Act Stand The Test Of Communal One-upmanship?

The act was brought in by the Congress government led by PV Narasimha Rao during the peak of the Ram Temple movement. The law also aimed to apply to the disputed Kashi Vishwanath temple-Gyanvapi mosque complex in Varanasi and the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple-Shahi Idgah mosque complex in Mathura, however, did not explicitly mention these disputes.

As the Ram Mandir movement grew, so did the demand for surveys in Varanasi and Mathura.

Why Is The Act Being Challenged?

The constitutional validity of the act has been challenged by many petitioners. Petitions filed before the apex court argue that the "arbitrary and irrational retrospective cut-off date" of August 15, 1947, protects encroachments by "fundamentalist-barbaric invaders and law-breakers".

Petitioners have further argued that by freezing the status of certain places of worship, the Hindu community is barred from "reclaiming" these places which were "allegedly invaded" during the Mughal Era and the British Raj.

ALSO READ | Places Of Worship Act: A Test Of India's Secular Soul

Petitioners have demanded that sections 2, 3, and 4 of the act should be scrapped, arguing that these provisions deny individuals and religious groups the right to judicial remedies. Furthermore. Hindu groups have demanded the scrapping of the 1991 act as a whole.

However, despite the challenges, many MPs, bureaucrats and political parties have expressed support for the act, arguing that the Places of Worship Act intends to safeguard secularism and communal harmony in the country.

What Are The Key Arguments?

The lead petition in the case - Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, was filed in 2020 and argues that sections 2, 3 and 4 of the act are unconstitutional in nature.

Advocate Ashwini Kumar further argues that the act is beyond the power of the union government and infringes on the fundamental rights of Indians.

Kumar also adds that the sections under these acts clash with the following fundamental rights in the Indian Constitution -

• Article 25 mentions the right to pray, profess, practice and propagate religion.

• Article 26 which guarantees the right to restore, manage, maintain and administer the 'places of worship and pilgrimage'

• Article 29 states the right to restore and preserve the script and culture.

What Did The Supreme Court Say?

The Supreme Court has ordered that no fresh suits regarding places of worship will be filed until the apex court reaches a final verdict.

Furthermore, the top court also ordered that no orders - interim or final - should be passed by any trial court about pending cases regarding places of worship such as the Gyanvapi mosque, Mathura Shah Idgah and Sambhal's Jama Masjid.

Additionally, the top court have given the Central government four weeks time to file its response to the writ petitions.

The final order of the Supreme Court is expected to impact ongoing lawsuits filed by Hindu plaintiffs, seeking rights to properties containing Muslim mosques such as the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal, the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi, the Shahi Eidgah Masjid in Mathura, and the Ajmer Dargah in Rajasthan.