The Supreme Court on Monday postponed the hearing on multiple petitions challenging the validity and enforcement of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, to the first week of April, citing a lack of quorum. Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, presiding over a two-judge bench, emphasized that the case requires a three-judge bench, leading to its adjournment. He also noted the increasing number of petitions related to the Act.

At the start of the proceedings, senior advocate Indira Jaising, representing one of the petitioners, sought clarification on whether the matter would be addressed that day. CJI Khanna responded, “It won’t be taken today. It’s a three-judge bench matter. We are in a two-judge bench today.”

Jaising pointed out that the framing of issues in the case was still pending, to which CJI Khanna stated that this task would also be undertaken by a three-judge bench. Tentatively, he suggested that the case would be heard “sometime in March.”

When a lawyer mentioned filing a new petition, CJI Khanna remarked, “There’s a limit to how many new petitions can be admitted. We will see…” Later in the day, the court scheduled the next hearing for the week of April 1, citing the growing number of petitions making the case “unmanageable.” The bench clarified that all fresh petitions would be dismissed, but petitioners could file applications raising new grounds in the ongoing case.

Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Dushyant Dave, and MR Shamshad appeared for parties opposing advocate Ashwini Upadhyay’s petition. Upadhyay had originally challenged the Act in 2020, arguing that it discriminates against Hindu, Sikh, Jain, and Buddhist communities by freezing the religious character of places of worship as they stood on August 15, 1947, except for the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya, which was already under litigation at the time. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Union government.

When it was pointed out that the government had yet to submit its affidavit, the court noted, “Everyone says they are not raising new grounds… Maybe that is why [the affidavit is yet to be filed].”

The 1991 Act has become a contentious issue in both legal and political debates. Hindu litigants argue that it violates fundamental rights by restricting their ability to reclaim places of worship allegedly altered during historical invasions. BJP leaders, including Subramanian Swamy and Ashwini Upadhyay, have been vocal critics, calling for its repeal. In contrast, AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi and Muslim groups like Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind have defended the Act, arguing that it is essential for maintaining communal harmony and India’s secular fabric.

In January, Owaisi filed a petition advocating for the strict enforcement of the Act. The Congress, in a recent application, opposed challenges to the Act, describing it as a “cornerstone of secularism” and accusing petitioners of attempting to undermine constitutional principles. In November, RJD lawmaker Manoj Jha filed an intervention application, asserting that the Act does not violate fundamental rights.

On December 12, a special three-judge bench, led by CJI Khanna, along with Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan, issued an order barring lower courts from entertaining fresh lawsuits or conducting religious character surveys of places of worship. This ruling came amid increasing litigation by Hindu groups seeking surveys of mosques such as the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah Masjid in Mathura. The Supreme Court’s directive effectively halted proceedings in nearly 18 cases, which had sparked communal and political tensions.

The Union government was granted four weeks to clarify its stance on the Act, but its response has been pending for over two years, even as petitions continue to grow. The Supreme Court admitted pleas challenging the Act in March 2021.

With the case now deferred to March, attention will focus on how the Supreme Court frames the legal issues and whether the Union government finally submits its response, which could significantly impact the future of the 1991 Act and the broader legal battle over places of worship in India.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday strongly criticized the practice of announcing freebies before elections, stating that such measures discourage people from working as they receive free rations and financial aid, according to news agency PTI.

A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Augustine George Masih voiced its disapproval while hearing a case concerning the right to shelter for homeless individuals in urban areas.

Supreme Court’s Observations

Justice Gavai remarked that the distribution of freebies has led to a decline in willingness to work. “Unfortunately, because of these freebies, people are not willing to work. They are receiving free rations and financial assistance without any effort,” he stated.

The bench further emphasized the need to integrate homeless individuals into mainstream society, allowing them to contribute to the nation’s progress. “We appreciate your concern for them, but wouldn’t it be more beneficial to make them part of mainstream society and enable them to contribute to national development?” the judges noted.

Attorney General R. Venkataramani informed the court that the Centre is finalizing an urban poverty alleviation mission, which includes provisions for homeless shelters. In response, the bench asked the attorney general to specify the timeline for implementing the initiative. The matter is scheduled for further hearing in six weeks.

Additionally, the Supreme Court addressed a plea regarding Rohingya refugees’ access to public hospitals and schools. The court emphasized that no child should face discrimination in education and has scheduled a hearing on the matter for next week.

Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, strongly opposed the University Grants Commission (UGC) draft regulations on Thursday, arguing that the proposed rules for appointing teachers and academic staff in universities and colleges were an effort to impose a singular narrative of history, tradition, and language across India.

Gandhi accused the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) of attempting to erase diverse histories, cultures, and traditions in the country.

“That is their starting point and ultimate goal. They attack the Constitution because they want to enforce one singular idea—one history, one tradition, one language—on this country,” the former Congress president stated while addressing a protest organized by the DMK’s student wing at Jantar Mantar in Delhi.

According to him, the changes in state education systems were yet another attempt to further the RSS agenda.

“Every state has its own traditions, history, and language. That is why the Constitution defines India as a ‘Union of States’—it signifies that these diverse elements come together to form India. We must respect and acknowledge all languages, cultures, traditions, and histories,” Gandhi added.

Referring specifically to Tamil Nadu, he emphasized that the Tamil people have their own distinct history, language, and struggles.

“Imposing such regulations is an insult to the Tamil people and to all other states where the RSS is attempting to establish its dominance,” he said.

The Congress party has denounced the draft UGC regulations as “draconian and anti-Constitutional,” demanding their immediate withdrawal.

Criticizing the central government, the party argued that the justification of aligning the regulations with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 was flawed and called for an immediate rollback.

Congress’ INDIA bloc ally, the Samajwadi Party, also criticized the central government and the RSS. Party chief Akhilesh Yadav accused them of attempting to centralize power at the expense of state governments.

“They want to turn politicians into mere servants of industrialists. We cannot support this new education policy. I stand with the students and their decision. I oppose NEP and the BJP,” Yadav asserted.

Meanwhile, Congress general secretary in charge of communications, Jairam Ramesh, highlighted that a conclave of State Higher Education Ministers was held in Bengaluru, hosted by Karnataka minister MC Sudhakar. Representatives from six opposition-ruled states—Karnataka, Telangana, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Himachal Pradesh, and Jharkhand—adopted a 15-point resolution opposing the UGC’s proposed regulations, branding them “draconian.”