Ayodhya judgment does not cover validity of Places of Worship Act: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to Supreme Court

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that the top court's 2019 judgment in the Ayodhya case does not deal with the validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 (Act)..Mehta made the submission in response to a query in this regard put forth by a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) UU Lalit and Justices S Ravindra Bhat, and Ajay Rastogi while hearing petitions challenging the Act."Is the 1991 Act covered by the Ayodhya judgment? What is your personal view," the bench asked SG Mehta."It is not covered," replied Mehta..The Places of Worship Act mandates that character of all religious places of worship should be maintained as it was on August 15, 1947 and no suit or proceeding shall lie in a court of law with respect to character of place of worship.The law which was introduced during the height of Ram Janmabhoomi movement seeks to protect the status of all religious structures as it stood on the date of independence by barring courts from entertaining cases which raises dispute over the character of such places of worship.The law further provides that such cases already pending in courts would stand abated.The Act, however, carved an exception for Ram-Janambhoomi site which was the basis for courts including High Court and Supreme Court to examine the issue and deliver judgment.Since Ayodhya land was exempted, the Supreme Court had invoked this law in 2019 while awarding the disputed site at Ayodhya to child deity Ram Lalla. The Supreme Court had, however, reaffirmed that similar such cases cannot be entertained with respect to other sites in view of the Act..In the instant batch of petitions challenging the Act, the argument sought to be raised is that the validity of the Act was not under consideration before the top court in Ayodhya case and observations made by the Court with regard to the Act in that judgment would only be obiter dicta. One of the by BJP spokesperson Ashwini Upadhyay has stated that the Act allows illegal acts of invaders to continue for perpetuity by barring legal remedies to Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs.The Supreme Court had in May last year issued notice in the matter.The Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind later moved the Supreme Court seeking impleadment in the plea by Upadhyay, contending it was apparent that he has sought to indirectly target places of worship that are presently of Islamic character. The top court had allowed this impleadment application. .At today's hearing, the Central government sought more time to file its affidavit.Advocate Vrinda Grover, representing Jamiat Ulema i Hind, said that they will file a response once the Central government files its affidavit.The bench remarked that the respondents argument will be that the Ayodhya judgment dealt with the 1991 Act.Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the petitioner, said that the validity of the law was not under consideration in Ayodhya case. "So you will say all the discussion was obiter," the bench asked. "Yes, these questions are of national importance. Now it is upto the Supreme Court to determine validity," Dwivedi replied.He also submitted a list of questions of law arising for consideration by the court.The Court ordered that the petitioners questions be handed over to advocate Kanu Agrawal. "Ms Grover and any other counsel may inform Adv Kanu Agarwal within 7 days of reply, Mr Agarwal will collate the questions so that attention of court can be focussed on these questions. Mr Agarwal shall share copy of such convenience compilations with lawyer of all parties in digital mode. Thereafter all counsels to submit written submissions not exceeding 3 pages," the Court ordered.The case will be heard again on November 14..[Read live coverage of hearing below].The effect of the Supreme Court's Ayodhya judgment and the challenge to the Places of Worship Act