After the Union Government requested more time to file its counter-affidavit, the Supreme Court adjourned the hearing in a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991 on Monday. The bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, directed the Union to file its counter-affidavit by December 12 and scheduled the case for the first week of January 2023.

"The Counter affidavit is to be filed by the Union Government by 12th December, 2022 and be listed on first week of January, 2023. The counter is to be circulated to all counsels a week prior to the listing",

On October 12, a bench led by then-Court of Appeal Chief Justice UU Lalit directed the Union to file its counter-affidavit by October 31. Previously, on September 9, the Court had requested that the Center file its response within two weeks.

Petitioners submitted following issues for consideration

1.      Whether the Places of Worship (Special Provision) Act 1991 had legislative authority because it dealt with subjects mentioned in the State List (List 2) of the Constitution's 7th schedule, which are all the exclusive domain of state legislatures?

2.      Is the act a violation of Article 14 in the sense that it discriminates against all states other than J&K?

3.      Whether the prohibition on conversion of places of worship imposed by Section 3 read with Section 2(b) violates Articles 14, 21, 25, 26, and 29(1) of the Constitution in that it assumes, contrary to settled law relating to the dedication of temples and temple property to the immortal idol, that seeking reclamation or restoration of temples destroyed by Muslim invaders, particularly Aurangzeb, would amount to seeking conversion of the place of worship and the idol. Is it possible that depriving temples and idols of their property for no public purpose would violate Article 300 A of the Constitution?

4.      Whether the cut-off date of August 15, 1947, set by Section 4(1) of the Act, is discriminatory, manifestly arbitrary, and in violation of Articles 14, 21, 25, and 26 of the Indian Constitution because, for approximately 4 centuries prior to the said date, the people of India were not free and subjects of Mughal invaders and then British imperialists, and were unable to seek retrieval and reconstruction??

5.      Whether the second part of Section 4(2), which bars suits, appeals, and other legal proceedings with respect to the reclamation of a place of worship, is violative of Articles 14, 21, 25, 26, and 29(2) inasmuch as it denies access to the Court of Justice for the peaceful resolution of disputes and the redressed of wrongs committed by Muslim invaders on religious grounds by the use of force?

6.      Whether Section 4(2) of the Act is volative of Articles 14, 21, 25, 26, and 29(2) of the Constitution in as much as it mandates the abatement of pending disputes in relation to places of worship in the courts and thereby legislatively perpetuates the destruction of prime temples and the building of structures on the temple land by use of temple materials by the Muslim invaders by use of force, resulting in adversely impacting the fundamental rights of Hindus to religion and worship?

7.      Is the second part of Section 4 (2) intended to include proceedings under Articles 226 and 32, which are fundamental rights under the Constitution?

8.      Whether the proviso to Section 4(2), which allows suits, appeals, and legal proceedings to continue where conversion has occurred in the religious character of a place of worship after 15-8-47 despite its potential to disrupt public order and breach communal harmony while barring litigation relating to conversions that occurred in the past as a result of invaders' atrocities, amounts to hostile discrimination as between two classes of litigation, and whether Section 5 of the Act discriminates against prime temples like Kashi Vishwanath (one of the 12) and Krishna Janm Sthan by treating the Ram Janam Bhumi dispute as a "class by itself" while excluding from the exemption prime temples like Kashi Vishwanath (one of the 12) and Krishna Janm Sthan, which are equally, if not more, important temples whosery?

9.      If pending lawsuits and other legal proceedings are suspended, will cases be decided by legislative fiat without any adjudication procedure, which would be contrary to the fundamental features of the Rule of Law and judicial review?Whether the rights to worship, profess, practice, propagate, and manage religion guaranteed by Articles 25(1) and 26 of the Constitution, as well as the right to conserve one's own culture guaranteed by Article 25(1), would include the right to reclaim and reconstruct temples destroyed by Muslim invaders (which are a continuity),

10.  Whether a suit seeking restoration and reconstruction of or worship in temples destroyed and demolished by Mughal invaders would amount to "conversion" under the Act's definition of the term?

Case title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay versus Union Of India And Ors.

Citation: W.P.(C) No. 1246/2020