SYED KHALIQUE AHMED
NEW DELHI, JUNE 15
Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind(JUH) has moved the Supreme Court, opposing a petition filed by the Vishwa Bhadra Pujari Purohit Mahasangh that has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 4 of The Places of Worship(Special Protection) Act, 1991.
While requesting the court not to issue a notice on the petitioner’s plea, the JUH, that has moved the apex court through advocate Ejaz Maqbool, has requested to be impleaded as a party in the case.
In its application, the Muslim organisation submitted that “even issuance of notice in the present matter will create fear in the minds of the Muslim community with regard to their places of worship, especially in the aftermath of the Ayodhya dispute and will destroy the secular fabric of the nation”.
Stating that the Mahasangh’s petition “seeks to indirectly target places of worship which are presently of Muslim character”, the JUH submitted that it be impleaded as a party to put the views of the Muslim community on the issue.
The Mahasangh, in its petition has stated that Section 4 of 1991 Act validates the “alleged illegal and barabarous action of invaders who had converted the Hindu places of worship” and the Act does not allow Hindus to reclaim their places of worship.
Explaining the purpose of the 1991 Act, the JUH application says that while the Act prohibits conversion or alteration of any public place of worship, it also puts an obligation on the state to maintain the religious character or status quo of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947, excepting the Ayodhya case because that was in court before 1991 Act came into existence.
The JUH application said that this fact was also accepted by the Supreme Court in Ayodhya judgement.
It also cited several observations of the Supreme Court in the Ayodhya verdict and one of the observations was that “historical wrongs cannot be remedied by the people taking the law in their own hands. In preserving the character of places of public worship, Parliament has mandated in no uncertain terms that history and its wrongs shall not be used as instruments to oppress the present and the future”.
The JUH application has also referred to the Ayodhya case verdict in which it held that “The 1991 Act protects and secures the fundamental values of the Constitution, Section 4 by prohibiting conversion of the places of public worship, determined that Independence from the colonial rule furnished a constitutional basis for healing the injustices of the past by providing the confidence to every religious community that their places of worship will be preserved and their character will not be altered, and the Act is designed to protect secular features of the Indian polity, which is one of the basic features of the Constitution”.
The JUH application says that “even if all the allegations of the Mahasangh are assumed to be true, it is nothing but seeking a correction of historical wrongs which, as held by the Supreme Court in the Ayodhya case, is not something which can be done”. In Ayodhya case, the SC has held that the law cannot be used as a device to reach back in time and provide a legal remedy to every person who disagrees with the course which history has taken and that the courts of today cannot take cognizance of historical rights and wrongs unless it is shown that their legal consequences are enforceable in the present. In fact, the SC categorically held that this court cannot entertain claims that stem from actions of the Mughal rulers against Hindu places of worship in a court of law today. Quoting SC orders in Ayodhya case, the application says, “This court(Supreme Court) cannot entertain claims that stem from the actions of the Mughal rulers against Hindu places of worship in a court of law today. For any person who seeks solace or recourse against the actions of any number of ancient rulers, the law is not the answer”.
The JUH application points out that it is clear from the SC’s observations that the Mahasangh’s petition, which simply rests on the basis that Muslim invaders alleged converted the Hindu places of worship, cannot be entertained.
Pointing out there is a list of numerous mosques doing the rounds on social media which are alleged to have been built after destroying Hindu places of worship, the Jamiat says, “If the present petition is entertained, it will open floodgates of litigation against countless mosques in the country and the religious divide from which the country is recovering after the Ayodhya dispute, will only be widened”.
Courtesy: Syed Khalique Ahmed is the Chief Editor of indiatomorrow.net
