'It was a disaster on his part to give an oral remark which allowed ascertainment of the religious character of places of worship.'
'This disrupted the social harmony of the country.'
The Supreme Court of India on Monday, February 17, 2025, adjourned to April the hearing in the numerous petitions filed on the Places of Worship Act.
The apex court also expressed displeasure over the filing of several pleas on the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which mandates that the religious character of a place to be maintained as it existed on August 15, 1947.
The top court through its December 12, 2024 order, effectively stalled proceedings in about 18 lawsuits filed by various Hindu parties seeking surveys to ascertain the original religious character of 10 mosques.
This includes Gyanvapi at Varanasi, Shahi Idgah Masjid at Mathura and Shahi Jama Masjid at Sambhal where four people died in violence November 2024.
Among the petitioners before the Supreme Court is Iqra Choudhary, the Samajwadi Party Lok Sabha MP who represents Kairana in Uttar Pradesh.
The apex court admitted Choudhary's petition and directed it to be consolidated with other related petitions in the case.
After the 2024 Lok Sabha election, Choudhary, 29, became the youngest Muslim woman MP. Her mother Begum Tabassum had won election from Kairana in a by-poll in 2018 before losing in the general elections the next year to Pradeep Choudhary of the Bharatiya Janata Party.
Choudhary returned to India during the COVID-19 pandemic from London where she was studying at the prestigious School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS).
In 2022, her brother Nahid Hasan won the Kairana assembly seat on a Samajwadi Party ticket, and two years later Choudhary won the Lok Sabha seat by 69,116 votes.
The Supreme Court on Monday said that too many petitions have been filed on the Places of Worship Act, and there is a limit to interventions being filed. In this scenario, do you feel your petition was unnecessary?
When we filed our petition there were already petitions filed on the Places of Worship Act. When we checked the credentials of the people who had filed the petitions we found out that a few of them had colluded with the other side, and therefore we wanted someone as eminent as Kapil Sibal to be on our side to represent us in this case. When we got him to represent us, we went ahead and filed the petition.
In December 2024 a bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna had directed trial courts across the country not to pass any effective orders or surveys against existing religious structures, so why did you file a writ seeking implementation of the Places of Worship Act?
There is a long process for petition like ours to come up for hearing. Our petition was already filed and it was in process.
Our petition was filed on December 12 and this judgment you are talking of came after that.
Right now lawsuits have been filed on the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal, the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, the Shahi Eidgah Masjid in Mathura and the Ajmer Dargah in Rajasthan. Do you fear in future more Muslim places of worship will be open to dispute?
Yes, because our then Chief Justice of India made an oral remark on the Places of Worship Act in 2022 (that ascertaining the religious character of a place of worship was not barred by the Places of Worship Act).
Post his oral remark any person in any corner of India could approach any mosque and claim a temple existed below it and in some cases the lower courts gave permission to do a survey of the mosque too.
We want this practice to stop.
Are you referring to Justice D Y Chandrachud's oral remark?
Right. His oral remark disturbed everything which existed on the Places of Worship Act.
The lower courts took this oral remark as law. I have no idea what Justice Chandrachud's intention was to make the remark. This oral remark was unnecessary.
We want the court to point out now that Justice Chandrachud's remark was only oral in nature.
What is the problem with establishing the religious character of a place of worship?
It does not help in any way. This will only disturb social harmony in the country.
The very reason the Places of Worship Act was brought in was because we had to stop this.
Before 1947 India was not an independent country and was ruled by rajas and maharajas. Whichever religion the raja used to deem fit, he would change the religious character of that place of worship.
This was in the past and history, but now we are an independent Republic. How can you take revenge now?
This is the precise reason the Places of Worship Act came into existence in 1991. If you keep on digging, then there is no limit and no end to these kinds of disputes.
After the Supreme Court gave its status quo order on January 10, what is the ground status in Sambhal considering the fact that it is claimed that the Shahi Masjid there was built after demolishing a Harihar temple dedicated to Kalki, the last incarnation of Lord Vishnu?
The Uttar Pradesh government is biased and the administration only follows the order of Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath.
Sambhal is a Muslim majority place and they want to disturb communal harmony in this place. They want to create chaos and if you notice, the first survey of the mosque was done very peacefully.
The second survey, we do not know how it was given and why it was given. Within no time there was a second survey which news was leaked by the police administration. Unscrupulous elements jumped in and created a bad atmosphere in the area which led to communal violence. This resulted in five deaths.
Now, the police have filed case against 97 unknown persons. People are being harassed in Sambhal and nobody is listening to the woes of the people. Nobody is taking accountability for the five deaths in the communal violence at Sambhal.
Many Hindu parties feel it is their right to claim ancient temples destroyed by Muslim invaders. Don't you feel they have the right to feel aggrieved for injustices meted to their forefathers?
You cannot take revenge for Muslim invaders on today's Muslims. Are they responsible for what happened 200 years ago?
Two hundred years ago we were not a democracy or ruled by the Indian Constitution.
If you are so interested in history then go and bring back the loot from the British that they took from us.
Unfortunately, today's government is focused on Hindu-Muslim issues and external elements causing tension between the two communities get importance by the ruling dispensation.
There are many places in my own area where a mandir-masjid exist adjacently. It is only now that the BJP has made a political agenda for such issues to divert the public's attention from real issues like unemployment and inflation.
Kashi and Mathura temples were not even mentioned in the BJP manifesto. Why do you think these things are being raked up now?
There is one petitioner who is there in every mandir-masjid dispute. He has done so only to become popular. RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat too spoke against this person and said that one must not get publicity from such issues.
So what do you seek from the courts?
Former Chief Justice Chandrachud's oral remark led to a trickle-down effect on this issue.
The lower courts opened many cases on his remark, therefore we feel that the Supreme Court can show the direction on how to be stringent and follow the Places of Worship Act.
It was a disaster on his part to give an oral remark which allowed ascertainment of the religious character of places of worship. This disrupted the social harmony of the country.
And if the court does not take an effective stance right now, it will disturb the harmony of the country for a long time.
What is the Samajwadi Party's stance on your petition?
I have informed my party chief Akhilesh Yadav of my petition. Following which senior lawyer Kapil Sibal is representing me in the case. (Kapil Sibal is a Rajya Sabha member of Parliament supported by the Samajwadi Party). Our party wants mandirs to remain as mandirs and masjids to remain as masjids, as they have remained all along.
Our party does not want to disturb the social fabric of this country. We felt only the court can give such a direction on the Places of Worship Act.
© 2025