Congress moves SC to oppose pleas against 1991 places of worship law
New Delhi, Jan 16 (PTI): The Congress has filed an intervention application in the Supreme Court to oppose the pleas challenging the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, saying they are "motivated and malicious attempt to undermine established principles of secularism".
In the application, filed through Congress General Secretary KC Venugopal, the party defended the law as a reflection of the country's secular ethos and a product of the popular mandate.
The plea emphasised that the 1991, which seeks to preserve the status quo of religious structures as they existed on August 15, 1947, was enacted with broad support during the 10th Lok Sabha when Congress and the Janata Dal party held the majority.
The party noted that the Act was part of its election manifesto in 1991, highlighting its long-standing commitment to protecting India's secular identity.
"The POWA (the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act) is essential to safeguard secularism in India and the present challenge appears to be a motivated and malicious attempt to undermine established principles of secularism," the plea said.
The party raised several arguments in favour of the law and sought permission of the top court to intervene in the ongoing legal challenge, asserting that its representatives were instrumental in bringing the Act into force.
"It may be relevant to mention that at the time of the passing of the POWA, it was the applicant along with the Janata Dal party that were in the majority in the legislature for the 10th Lok Sabha. The applicant humbly submits that the POWA was enacted by the Parliament , as it reflected the mandate of the Indian populace. In fact, the POWA had been envisaged prior to the year 1991 and the same was made a part of the applicant's then election manifesto for the parliamentary elections," it said.
The party countered claims that the Act violates the right to freedom of religion under Article 25 and cited the Supreme Court's Ayodhya verdict, which stated that the Act aligns with the obligations of a secular state.
The plea said that the 1991 law upholds fundamental rights under Articles 25, 26, 27, and 28, making it within Parliament's jurisdiction to enact.
"The present petition also erroneously states that the POWA is discriminatory as it is applicable only towards members of the Hindu, Sikh, Jain and Buddhist communities.
"A bare perusal of the POWA shows that it promotes equality amongst all religious groups and does not accord special treatment 4 towards specific communities as alleged by the petitioner...," it said.
It dismissed allegations of preferential treatment, pointing to Section 2(c) of the Act, which defines "place of worship" inclusively as temples, mosques, churches, gurudwaras, monasteries, or any other places of public religious worship.
Recently, a bench headed by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna agreed to examine a separate plea of AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi seeking effective implementation of the 1991 places of worship law.
On January 6, the Akhil Bhartiya Sant Samiti, a Hindu organisation, moved the top court seeking to intervene in cases filed against the validity of provisions of the 1991 law that asks to maintain the religious character of places as it existed on August 15, 1947.
The 1991 law prohibits conversion of any place of worship and provides for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947.
However, the dispute relating to Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid at Ayodhya was kept out of its purview.
The bench, while acting on a batch of similar pleas against the 1991 law, restrained all courts from entertaining fresh suits and passing any interim or final orders in pending cases seeking to reclaim religious places, particularly mosques and dargahs.
It was hearing about six petitions, including the lead one filed by lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay, challenging various provisions of the law.
The lead petition, filed by BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay in 2020, challenges the PoWA on the grounds that it is arbitrary and violates fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 25 of the Constitution.
The petitioners argue that the Act infringes on their right to practice religion by freezing the status of places of worship as they existed in 1947.
However, several parties, including the Gyanvapi Mosque Managing Committee and Maharashtra MLA Dr. Jitendra Satish Awhad, has filed intervention applications supporting the Act.
They argue that the PoWA is vital for maintaining communal harmony and ensuring religious coexistence.
The Centre is yet to file its counter-affidavit in the court in the case.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
