Connect with us
Saturday,23-November-2024
Breaking News

Politics

Places of Worship Act put to test as Gyanvapi mosque case goes to Supreme Court

Published

on

The three-page legislation — The Places of Worship Act, 1991 — is at the centre of the row over videographic survey carried out at the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, where a Shivling was purportedly discovered.

The law has been invoked by the Committee of Management, Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi, which manages the Gyanvapi mosque, before the Supreme Court, saying mischievous attempts were being made to change the character of the mosque, which existed for 500 years.

In the Ayodhya judgment, the Supreme Court had said that the Act is intrinsically related to the obligations of a secular state and it reflects the commitment of India to equality of all religions.

However, in the Gyanvapi mosque matter, the Act will be put to legal scrutiny and face a test, in view of the ethos of secularism.

A bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, Surya Kant, and P.S. Narasimha observed that the survey of a structure to ascertain its religious nature is not barred under the Act.

The committee moved the top court under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code against the maintainability of the suit, filed by five Hindu women seeking enforcement of their right to worship Goddess Shringar Gauri and other deities inside the mosque.

The masjid committee has also questioned the appointment of a commissioner for the video survey of the mosque, as it was barred under the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, and pointed at the fallout of entertaining a suit in gross violation of the provisions of the 1991 Act.

The counsel representing the masjid committee argued in the apex court that similar mischief is being attempted in connection with four-five other mosques and objected to the trial court order to protect an area which had been used for the last 500 years by Muslims as ‘wuzu khana’ (ablution pond).

The Places of Worship Act, 1991 had its own share of controversies. The then Union Home Minister, S.B. Chavan, while moving the Bill in the Lok Sabha had said that it is a measure to provide and develop our glorious traditions of love, peace and harmony.

However, the BJP, then main Opposition party, had opposed the Bill tooth and nail, and termed it as another attempt by the Congress government to appease the minorities.

The Central government notified the Act to forestall fresh claims by any community about the previous designation of any religious place of worship and also subsequent attempts to regain land, on which they stood.

The Places of Worship Act, 1991 begins by saying, “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.”

Section 4 of the Act says, “It is hereby declared that the religious character of a place of worship existing on the 15th day of August, 1947 shall continue to be the same as it existed on that day.”

The Section 4(2) of the Act says any suit, appeal or other proceeding with respect to the conversion of the religious character of any place of worship, existing on August 15, 1947, is pending before any court, tribunal or other authority, the same should abate, and no fresh suit or legal proceedings would be instituted.

And, the proviso to this section clarifies that only those litigations are allowed, where conversion has taken place in the religious character after August 15, 1947. The offence under the Act is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and also a monetary penalty.

According to the Act, if a person attempts to convert any place of worship, or is part of a conspiracy, she/he can face a jail term.

The Act has put the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute outside its domain of operation. However, the Supreme Court in its Ayodhya judgment cited its importance. In November 2019, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Hindu side paving the way for the construction of Ram temple in Ayodhya.

The apex court had then said The Places of Worship Act is intrinsically related to the obligations of a secular state and it reflects the commitment of India to the equality of all religions.

“Above all, The Places of Worship Act is an affirmation of the solemn duty which was cast upon the state to preserve and protect the equality of all faiths as an essential constitutional value, a norm which has the status of being a basic feature of the Constitution. There is a purpose underlying the enactment of The Places of Worship Act. The law speaks to our history and to the future of the nation,” the top court had said.

The five-judge bench had said: “Historical wrongs cannot be remedied by the people taking the law in their own hands. In preserving the character of places of public worship, the 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 apex court had said The Places of Worship Act imposes a non-derogable obligation towards enforcing “our commitment to secularism under the Indian Constitution and the law is hence a legislative instrument designed to protect the secular features of the Indian polity, which is one of the basic features of the Constitution”.

“Non-retrogression is a foundational feature of the fundamental constitutional principles of which secularism is a core component. The Places of Worship Act is thus a legislative intervention which preserves non-retrogression as an essential feature of our secular values,” it had said.

On May 20, 2022, the top court noted that ascertaining the religious character of a place of worship through a procedure known to the law, will not fall foul of The Places of Worship Act, 1991. The top court has shifted the trial of the suit by the Hindu parties from civil judge, senior division, to the district judge.

The top court said its May 17 interim order — protecting the ‘Shivling’, purportedly discovered during the survey, and free access to Muslims for ‘namaz’ — will remain operational for eight weeks, after the district judge’s decision in the matter, so as to allow the aggrieved parties to appeal against the decision.

The Supreme Court has scheduled the Gyanvapi case for hearing in July.

Maharashtra

Maharashtra Assembly Elections 2024: Congress Alleges Discrepancies In EVM Numbers In Mira Bhayandar

Published

on

Questioning the sanctity of the election process and accuracy of election results which are to be declared on counting day scheduled on Saturday (23, November), the Congress party has alleged discrepancies in the number of votes polled at various booths in the Mira Bhayandar (145) assembly constituency.

In his letter to the returning officer, Congress leader-Anil Sawant who was the election representative of MVA candidate- Muzaffar Hussain pointed out mismatch of 386 additional votes between the data in form 17-C and figures generated by the electronic voting machines (EVM), even as clarity eludes actual figures at some of the other booths.

Seeking an official explanation from the returning officer, Sawant has also alleged that the mock drill votes were also included in the polling figures. According to the figures released by the returning officer, the constituency recorded a voter turnout of 51.75 percent as 2,64,534 out of the 5,10,862 voters exercised their franchise.

However, form 17C shows a count of 51.67 percent which translates into a difference of 0.08 percent (386 votes) on the higher side. Moreover, the complainant has also raised a serious question mark on the delay in publication of the figures of the postal ballots.

While form 17A is used to record the details of every voter who comes into a polling booth and casts his/her vote, form 17C is an account of all the votes recorded. Under Rule 49S(2) of the Conduct of Elections Rules-1961, a presiding officer is mandated to furnish a copy of the entries made in form 17C to the polling agents of the candidates at the close of polling.

7C is crucial as the voter turnout data in this form can be used to legally challenge an election result. The Congress party is expected to take an aggressive stand if the anomalies are not rectified before the counting process.

Continue Reading

Maharashtra

Ex-NCB Officer Sameer Wankhede Moves Bombay HC Seeking CBI Probe Against NCP Leader Nawab Malik

Published

on

Ex-NCB Officer Sameer Wankhede Moves Bombay HC Seeking CBI Probe Against NCP Leader Nawab Malik

Mumbai: IRS officer Sameer Wankhede has moved the Bombay High Court, seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or court-monitored probe into an FIR he filed in 2022 against former state minister and NCP leader Nawab Malik under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Wankhede, an Additional Commissioner in the Directorate General of Taxpayer Services (DGTS) and a member of the Mahar Scheduled Caste, alleges that the police’s inaction in the matter has caused him and his family significant mental distress and humiliation.

On August 14, 2022, Wankhede filed an FIR with the Goregaon police station against Malik. Malik has neither been arrested in the case, nor has the chargesheet been filed in the case till date. 

Former NCB zonal officer, who shot to fame after arresting actor Shah Rukh Khan son, Aryan Khan, in the 2021 Cordelia Cruise drug bust case, had also arrested Malik’s son-in-law Sameer Khan. 

Wankhede has alleged that after Sameer Khan’s arrest, Malik launched a sustained campaign to defame and humiliate him and his family on social media and television, targeting their caste and questioning the authenticity of Wankhede’s caste certificate. 

The officer had earlier filed a complaint with the Scheduled Caste Commission in October 2021, seeking action against Malik. 

Despite a restraining order issued by the High Court in a separate defamation suit prohibiting Malik from making defamatory remarks, Wankhede claims Malik continued to violate the order, including questioning the validity of his caste certificate as recently as on October 27, 2024. 

A caste scrutiny committee has since upheld the authenticity of Wankhede’s certificate in a detailed 91-page report.

Malik Influenced State Police To Delay Probe: Sameer Wankhede

Wankhede alleges that Malik has influenced the state police to delay the investigation. He points out that critical provisions under the SC/ST Act have yet to be added to the FIR despite multiple reminders to the Goregaon police. “Respondent No. 2 (Malik), with his muscle power, influence and money power is controlling the state police machinery and continues to commit further offence, this can be overtly witnessed as how the Accused (Malik) is openly giving interviews to various media platforms and us wandering freely and yet no arrest is affected despite being no protective order,” the petition, filed through advocate Sana Khan,  read.

Wankhede seeks the court’s direction to transfer the investigation to an independent agency or the CBI, ensure the addition of necessary provisions under the SC/ST Act, and order the submission of a detailed report on the investigation’s progress.

Wankhede has also highlighted a similar FIR filed by his cousin, Sanjay Wankhede, which has faced the same lack of action. He contends Malik’s actions are politically motivated, aimed at influencing voters before elections.

The petition is likely to come up for hearing on November 28. 

Continue Reading

Maharashtra

Maharashtra Assembly Elections 2024: Mumbai Sees Marginal Rise In Voter Turnout, Suburbs Lead At 56.39%, City At 52.65%

Published

on

The voter turnout figures released on Thursday by the BMC indicated a low turnout in the city during the November 20 assembly election. In Mumbai city district, voter participation stood at 52.65%, while the suburban district saw a slightly higher turnout of 56.39%; both figures are marginally higher than 2019.

In Mumbai city, which covers 10 constituencies, there are a total of 25,43,610 registered voters. Of these, 13,39,299 cast their ballots. The male voter turnout was 52%, with 7,10,174 out of 13,65,904 male voters participating. Female voters turnout was lower at 53%, with 6,29,049 women out of 11,77,462 voting. Additionally, 76 voters from the “other” category cast their ballots out of 244 eligible voters.

The lowest voter turnout in Mumbai city was recorded in Colaba, with just 44.44%. Other areas with low turnout included Mumbadevi (48.76%), Dharavi (50.03%), Malabar Hill (52.53%), and Byculla (53.02%). In contrast, Mahim saw the highest voter participation at 59.01%, followed by Wadala (57.67%), Shivadi (55.52%), Sion Koliwada (53.56%), and Worli (53.53%).

In Mumbai suburban, which encompasses 26 constituencies, the voter turnout reached 56.39%. There are 76,86,098 registered voters in this district, with 43,34,513 casting their votes. Among male voters, 57% participated 23,58,589 out of 41,01,457, while 57% of female voters also voted 20,33,654 out of 35,83,803. Additionally, 270 people from the ‘other’ category voted out of 838 eligible individuals.

The lowest voter turnout in the suburban district was seen in constituencies such as Vandre West (51.36%), Versova (51.44%), Mankhurd Shivaji Nagar (52.14%), Kalina (52.68%), and Chandivali (52.97%). On the other hand, the highest turnout was recorded in constituencies like Bhandup West (62.88%), Borivali (62.32%), Mulund (61.42%), Ghatkopar West (59.99%), and Ghatkopar East (59.58%).

Several constituencies in Mumbai witnessed a significant rise in voter participation compared to the 2019 assembly elections. In Andheri West, the voting percentage jumped from 43.52% in 2019 to 53.67% in 2024; a rise of over 10%. Versova’s turnout rose from 42.38% in 2019 to 51.44% this year, while Mulund saw an increase from 53.81% to 61.42%. Vandre West’s turnout also grew substantially from 44% to 51.36%, with a similar trend in Goregaon (from 46.44% in 2019 to 55.61% this year) and Shivadi’s 49.33% in 2019 to 55% in 2024.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending