<p>Former BJP MP Chintamani Malviya has approached the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which mandated maintaining the character of religious places as prevailed on August 15, 1947.</p>.<p>In a writ petition, he claimed the provisions of the law not only offended fundamental rights to equality, non-discrimination and freedom to practice religion but also principles of secularism which is an integral part of the Preamble and the basic structure of the Constitution.</p>.<p>The petitioner, who hailed from Ujjain, sought a direction from the court to declare Section 2 of the 1991 Act void and unconstitutional for being violative of fundamental rights, so far as it seeks to validate "places of worship", illegally made by barbaric invaders.</p>.<p>The plea filed through advocate Rakesh Mishra contended that the law, which excluded Ayodhya dispute from its purview, was unconstitutional for many reasons, including that it offended right of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs to pray, profess, practice and propagate religion, and infringed upon their rights to manage, maintain and administer the places of worship and pilgrimage.</p>.<p><strong><a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/north-and-central/explained-what-is-the-places-of-worship-act-1991-1109987.html" target="_blank">Explained | What is the Places of Worship Act, 1991?</a></strong></p>.<p>Besides, it deprived Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs from owning and acquiring religious properties belonging to deities, misappropriated by other communities and took away their right of judicial remedy to take back their places of worship and pilgrimage and the property which belonged to deity, it claimed. </p>.<p>The plea also contended that the law also legalised barbarian acts of invaders and violated the doctrine of Hindu law that "temple property is never lost even if enjoyed by strangers for years and even the king cannot take away property as deity is embodiment of God and is juristic person, represents infinite the timeless and cannot be confined by the shackles of time".</p>.<p>Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, BJP leader Subramanium Swamy, advocate Rudra Vikram Singh, Swami Jeetendranand Saraswati, a religious leader, and a retired Army officer Anil Kabotra are among the petitioners who have already filed petitions in the top court challenging validity of the 1991 Act.</p>.<p>Recently, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, a Muslim organisation, has also moved the apex court seeking to implead in the PIL filed by Upadhyay, on which notice was issued last year. </p>
<p>Former BJP MP Chintamani Malviya has approached the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which mandated maintaining the character of religious places as prevailed on August 15, 1947.</p>.<p>In a writ petition, he claimed the provisions of the law not only offended fundamental rights to equality, non-discrimination and freedom to practice religion but also principles of secularism which is an integral part of the Preamble and the basic structure of the Constitution.</p>.<p>The petitioner, who hailed from Ujjain, sought a direction from the court to declare Section 2 of the 1991 Act void and unconstitutional for being violative of fundamental rights, so far as it seeks to validate "places of worship", illegally made by barbaric invaders.</p>.<p>The plea filed through advocate Rakesh Mishra contended that the law, which excluded Ayodhya dispute from its purview, was unconstitutional for many reasons, including that it offended right of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs to pray, profess, practice and propagate religion, and infringed upon their rights to manage, maintain and administer the places of worship and pilgrimage.</p>.<p><strong><a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/north-and-central/explained-what-is-the-places-of-worship-act-1991-1109987.html" target="_blank">Explained | What is the Places of Worship Act, 1991?</a></strong></p>.<p>Besides, it deprived Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs from owning and acquiring religious properties belonging to deities, misappropriated by other communities and took away their right of judicial remedy to take back their places of worship and pilgrimage and the property which belonged to deity, it claimed. </p>.<p>The plea also contended that the law also legalised barbarian acts of invaders and violated the doctrine of Hindu law that "temple property is never lost even if enjoyed by strangers for years and even the king cannot take away property as deity is embodiment of God and is juristic person, represents infinite the timeless and cannot be confined by the shackles of time".</p>.<p>Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, BJP leader Subramanium Swamy, advocate Rudra Vikram Singh, Swami Jeetendranand Saraswati, a religious leader, and a retired Army officer Anil Kabotra are among the petitioners who have already filed petitions in the top court challenging validity of the 1991 Act.</p>.<p>Recently, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, a Muslim organisation, has also moved the apex court seeking to implead in the PIL filed by Upadhyay, on which notice was issued last year. </p>
