New Delhi, May 23

Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who has challenged the validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, earlier than the Supreme Court, has sought to be made a celebration within the Gyanvapi mosque dispute.

In an software filed within the prime courtroom, Upadhyay – a Delhi BJP chief – urged the courtroom to permit him to be added as a celebration for applicable appreciation of the details and circumstances of the case. The prime courtroom had in March 2021 issued discover to the Centre on Upadhyay’s petition.

The 1991 Act goals to guard the standing of all non secular buildings as they stood on August 15, 1947, and debars courts from entertaining petitions elevating any dispute over the character of such locations of worship. Section 3 of the Act makes it clear that change of standing of spiritual buildings can’t be carried out, whereas Section 4 prohibits submitting of any swimsuit or initiating every other authorized proceedings for a conversion of the non secular character of anywhere of worship, as current on the day of independence.

The Act mentioned all circumstances already pending in courts—besides the Ram-Janmabhoomi dispute at Ayodhya—would stand abated.

Upadhyay alleged that the 1991 Act saved a closing date of August 15, 1947, to legalise the unlawful acts of barbaric invaders.

Only these locations of worship must be protected, which have been constructed in accordance with private legislation of the individual setting up them. The locations of worship constructed in derogation of the non-public legislation can’t be termed as a ‘place of worship’, he submitted.

”It is submitted that Hindus Jains Buddhists Sikhs have the fitting to profess, observe and propagate faith as offered of their non secular scriptures and Article 13 prohibits from making legislation which takes away their rights. Moreover, the standing of mosque could be given solely to such buildings which have been constructed in keeping with tenets of Islam and mosques constructed in opposition to the provisions contained in Islamic legislation can’t be termed as Mosque,” Upadhyay acknowledged in his plea.

Muslims can’t assert any proper in respect of any piece of land claiming to be a mosque except it has been constructed on legally owned and occupied virgin land, he mentioned, including a temple’s non secular character doesn’t change after the demolition of roof, partitions, pillars, basis and even providing Namaz.

The property as soon as vested within the deity continued to be deity’s property and proper of deity and devotees have been by no means misplaced, no matter lengthy unlawful encroachment on such property, he submitted.