The Supreme Court has granted the Centre Government two more weeks till October 31 to frame and file its response to the petitions filed for challenging the constitutionality of the Places of Worship Act, 1991. Further, the bench comprising of Chief Justice U.U. Lalit, Justice Ravindra Bhat, and Justice Ajay Rastogi has scheduled the present case pertaining to the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship Act, 1991.

The bench had instructed the parties to finish their pleadings by October 11 in order for the cases to be considered by a three-judge bench on that date.

The case was filed by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, an advocate and politician, challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which prohibit any dispute arising before the court concerning the Act.

The petitioner contended that the Supreme Court has a responsibility to uphold basic rights as part of the authority granted by Article 32. The argument is made that the court's authority is broad enough to issue any necessary instructions for the enforcement of basic rights rather than being restricted to issuing specific writs and remedies.

Mr. Upadhyay appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted before the court that the law was passed without much consideration and debate. This submits that the center also does not have proper jurisdiction to pass the act related to places of worship and pilgrimage as it is part of the state list.

The main issues framed, among others, presented before the court are:

1. Whether Parliament was legislatively competent to enact The Places of Worship (Special Provision) Act 1991 as the Act deals with subject matters mentioned in the State List (List-2) of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution, which are all in the exclusive domain of the State Legislatures?
2. Whether the second part of Section-4 (2) would envelop proceedings under Article 226 and Article 32, which is a fundamental right under the Constitution?

Case Details:-

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

ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.