Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991

Last updated
Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991
Citation ACT NO. 42 OF 1991
Summary
An Act to prohibit conversion of any place of worship and to provide for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on the 15th day of August, 1947, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
Status: In force

The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 seeks to maintain and protect the religious character of places of worship in India. The full text of the code is available online through India Code: Digital Repository of Laws. [1] It may be downloaded in the PDF format through the website of the Ministry of Home Affairs. [2]

Contents

The Act of 1991 opens with the statement: "An Act to prohibit conversion of any place of worship and to provide for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on the 15th day of August, 1947, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto." [3]

Sections

The act has the following sections:

This section repeals earlier iterations of the act.

Petitions

In 2021, the Supreme Court judgment had impacts on the Places of Worship Act. [4]

In 2022, the division bench of the Supreme Court of India, led by the Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, accepted a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. [5] On November 14, 2022, a bench headed by the chief justice and Justice J. B. Pardiwala gave the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta more time to file an affidavit, as it clubbed together petitions filed by several people including former BJP MP Subramanian Swamy and advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, who had filed his plea on March 12, 2021. [6] [7]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of India</span> Highest judicial body in India

The Supreme Court of India is the supreme judicial authority and the highest court of the Republic of India. It is the final court of appeal for all civil and criminal cases in India except for Muslim personal law. It also has the power of judicial review. The Supreme Court, which consists of the Chief Justice of India and a maximum of fellow 33 judges, has extensive powers in the form of original, appellate and advisory jurisdictions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bombay High Court</span> High court of Maharashtra and Goa states

The High Court of Bombay is the high court of the states of Maharashtra and Goa in India, and the union territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu. It is seated primarily at Mumbai, and is one of the oldest high courts in India. The High Court has circuit benches at Nagpur and Aurangabad in Maharashtra and Porvorim,

<i>Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum</i> Maintenance lawsuit in India

Mohd. Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum [1985], commonly referred to as the Shah Bano case, was a controversial maintenance lawsuit in India, in which the Supreme Court delivered a judgment favouring maintenance given to an aggrieved divorced Muslim woman. Then the Congress government enacted a law with its most controversial aspect being the right to maintenance for the period of iddat after the divorce, and shifting the onus of maintaining her to her relatives or the Waqf Board. It was seen as discriminatory as it denied right to basic maintenance available to Muslim women under secular law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Capital punishment in India</span>

Capital punishment in India is a legal penalty for some crimes under the country's main substantive penal legislation, the Indian Penal Code, as well as other laws. Executions are carried out by hanging as the primary method of execution per Section 354(5) of the Criminal Code of Procedure, 1973 is "Hanging by the neck until dead", and is imposed only in the 'rarest of cases'.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indian Penal Code</span> Erstwhile Penal code of Republic of India

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) was the official criminal code in the Republic of India, inherited from British India after independence, until it was repealed and replaced by Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) in December 2023, which came into effect on 1 July 2024. It was a comprehensive code intended to cover all substantive aspects of criminal law. The code was drafted on the recommendations of the first Law Commission of India established in 1834 under the Charter Act of 1833 under the chairmanship of Thomas Babington Macaulay. It came into force in the subcontinent during the British rule in 1862. However, it did not apply automatically in the Princely states, which had their own courts and legal systems until the 1940s. The code was amended several times and was supplemented by other criminal provisions.

Section 377A was a Singaporean law that criminalised sex between consenting adult males. It was introduced under British colonial rule in 1938 when it was added to the Penal Code by the colonial government. It remained a part of the Singapore body of law after the Penal Code review of 2007 which removed most of the other provisions in Section 377. It was subsequently repealed in its entirety in 2023.

Section 377 is a British colonial penal code that criminalized all sexual acts "against the order of nature". The law was used to prosecute people engaging in oral and anal sex along with homosexual activity. As per a Supreme Court Judgement since 2018, the Indian Penal Code Section 377 is used to convict non-consensual sexual activities among homosexuals with a minimum of ten years’ imprisonment extended to life imprisonment. It has been used to criminalize third gender people, such as the apwint in Myanmar. In 2018, then British Prime Minister Theresa May acknowledged how the legacies of such British colonial anti-sodomy laws continue to persist today in the form of discrimination, violence, and even death.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Nepal</span> Highest court in Nepal

The Supreme Court of Nepal is the highest court in Nepal. It is designated as the court of record by the Constitution of Nepal. It has appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the seven High Courts and extraordinary original jurisdiction. The court consists of twenty judges and a Chief Justice.

The basic structure doctrine is a common law legal doctrine that the constitution of a sovereign state has certain characteristics that cannot be erased by its legislature. The doctrine is recognised in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Uganda. It was developed by the Supreme Court of India in a series of constitutional law cases in the 1960s and 1970s that culminated in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, where the doctrine was formally adopted. Bangladesh is perhaps the only legal system in the world which recognizes this doctrine with an expressed, written and rigid constitutional manner through article 7B of its Constitution.

Jainism is considered to be a legally distinct religion in India. A section of scholars earlier considered it as a Hindu sect or a Buddhist heresy, but it is one of the three ancient Indian religions. On 27 January 2014, the Government of India explicitly awarded the status of a "minority religion" to the Jain community in India, as per Section 2(c) of the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) Act (NCM), 1992.

The Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) is an act of the Parliament of India enacted in 1955. Three other important acts were also enacted as part of the Hindu Code Bills during this time: the Hindu Succession Act (1956), the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act (1956), the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (1956).

<i>Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case

Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2009) is a landmark Indian case decided by a two-judge bench of the Delhi High Court, which held that treating consensual homosexual sex between adults as a crime is a violation of fundamental rights protected by India's Constitution. The verdict resulted in the decriminalization of homosexual acts involving consenting adults throughout India. This was later overturned by the Supreme Court of India in Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. Naz Foundation, in which a 2 judge bench reinstated Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. However, even that was overturned by a 5 judge bench in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India in 2018, decriminalizing homosexuality once again.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bal Patil</span> Indian writer (1932–2011)

Bal Patil was a Jain scholar, journalist, social activist and Jain minority status advocate from Mumbai, Maharashtra. He was appointed as a member of State Minority Commission by the Govt. of Maharashtra from 2001 to 2004. He was the Secretary-General of All India Jain Minority Forum, New Delhi—a position he held until his death—and was an ardent advocate of minority status for Jainism. The Jain minority cause gained prominence when he petitioned the Supreme Court of India for the recognition of Jain religious minority status on par with other Indian minorities as per the two recommendations by the National Minorities Commission. He was also the first non-medical President of the National Society for the Prevention of Heart Disease & Rehabilitation, Mumbai. He has also authored many books on Jainism and presented several papers at various seminars and conferences.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">MediaOne TV</span> Indian television news channel

MediaOne TV is an Indian Malayalam-language television channel operated by Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited. The channel was licensed in September 2011 and was officially launched on 10 February 2013. The main studio is located at Velliparamba, Kozhikode, Kerala.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dipak Misra</span> 45th Chief Justice of India

Dipak Misra is an Indian jurist who served as the 45th Chief Justice of India from 28 August 2017 till 2 October 2018. He is also former Chief Justice of the Patna High Court and Delhi High Court. He is the nephew of Justice Ranganath Misra, who was the 21st Chief Justice from 1990 to 1991.

Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 is an enabling provision to assist the litigants who failed to do an act within the prescribed time period as originally fixed under various enactments. Whether Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 will be applicable to the Execution Proceedings instituted under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">PESA Act</span> 244(A)

The Provisions of the Panchayats Act, 1996 abbreviated as PESA Act is a law enacted by the Government of India for ensuring self governance through traditional Gram Sabhas for people living in the Scheduled Areas of India. Scheduled Areas are areas identified by the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India. Scheduled Areas are found in ten states of India which have predominant population of tribal communities. The Scheduled Areas, were not covered by the 73rd Constitutional Amendment or Panchayati Raj Act of the Indian Constitution as provided in the Part IX of the Constitution. PESA was enacted on 24 December 1996 to extend the provisions of Part IX of the Constitution to Scheduled Areas, with certain exceptions and modifications. PESA sought to enable the Panchayats at appropriate levels and Gram Sabhas to implement a system of self-governance with respect to a number of issues such as customary resources, minor forest produce, minor minerals, minor water bodies, selection of beneficiaries, sanction of projects, and control over local institutions. PESA is an Act to provide for the extension of the provisions of Part IX of the Constitution relating to the Panchayats and the Scheduled Areas. PESA was viewed as a positive development for tribal communities in Scheduled Areas who had earlier suffered tremendously from engagement with modern development processes and from the operation of both colonial laws and statutes made in independent India. The loss of access to forest land, and other community resources had increased their vulnerability. Rampant land acquisition and displacement due to development projects had led to largescale distress in tribal communities living in Scheduled Areas. PESA was seen as a panacea for many of these vulnerabilities and sought to introduce a new paradigm of development where the tribal communities in such Scheduled Areas were to decide by themselves the pace and priorities of their development.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prafulla Chandra Pant</span> Indian judge (born 1952)

Prafulla Chandra Pant is an Indian judge and author who served as a judge of the Supreme Court of India from 2014 to 2017. He later served as a member of the National Human Rights Commission of India from 2019 to 2021, and briefly acted as its chairperson. Prior to his appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court of India, he had previously served as chief justice of the Meghalaya High Court at Shillong and as a judge of the Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital.

<i>Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case

Suresh Kumar Koushal &Anr. v. NAZ Foundation &Ors.(2013) is a case in which a 2 judge Supreme Court bench consisting of G. S. Singhvi and S. J. Mukhopadhaya overturned the Delhi High Court case Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and reinstated Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court of India decided to revisit this judgement after several curative petitions were filed against it, in 2017. Thereby in 2018, Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, a 5 judge bench of the Supreme Court overturned this judgement, decriminalizing homosexuality. Portions of Section 377 relating to sex with minors, non-consensual sexual acts such as rape, and bestiality remain in force.

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay is a politician and lawyer at the Supreme Court of India and a leader of the Bharatiya Janta Party Delhi unit. In 2011, he quit his job to join Anna Hazare's anti-corruption movement and subsequently joined the newly formed the Aam Aadmi Party of which he was one of the founding members. He is known for filing Public Interest Litigations (PILs).

References

  1. India Code, see https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/1922?locale=en. Retrieved March 2024
  2. See Ministry of Home Affairs, https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/PlaceWorshipAct1991.pdf. Retrieved March 2024.
  3. See Ministry of Home Affairs, https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/PlaceWorshipAct1991.pdf. Retrieved March 2024.
  4. Krishnan, Murali (13 March 2021). "The effect of the Supreme Court's Ayodhya judgment and the challenge to the Places of Worship Act". Bar and Bench. Retrieved 2021-03-17.
  5. "Constitutionality of the Places of Worship Act". Supreme Court Observer. Retrieved 2023-08-07.
  6. "Challenges to the Places of Worship Act: What law says, why SC will examine it". Indian Express. November 14, 2022.
  7. "Places of Worship Act: Supreme Court gives Centre more time to respond". Indian Express. November 15, 2022.