The case challenges the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which protects the religious character of places of worship as they were on August 15, 1947.
Petitioners argue that the law prevents Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs from reclaiming worship sites allegedly taken over by invaders.
Muslim groups defend the Act, emphasizing its role in preserving secularism and fraternity, with the Ayodhya judgment supporting the law's importance in maintaining historical balance.
Despite being a four-year-old case, the Supreme Court has not made significant progress, while local courts in Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh are actively addressing suits challenging the origins of mosques.
Local courts have allowed surveys on sites like the Ajmer Sharif Dargah and Shahi Jama Masjid, based on claims they were originally temples.
The Supreme Court intervened in some cases, halting a survey of the Shahi Eidgah and permitting an investigation of the Gyanvapi mosque.
Concerns arise that these actions reflect a pattern of frivolous suits, aimed at changing the status of religious places, described as "salami tactics."
D.Y. Chandrachud noted that what may seem "frivolous" to some could be based on faith, presenting a challenge in balancing legal and religious claims.
COMMENTS