Congress’s KC Venugopal moves Supreme Court to defend Places of Worship Act
A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna is scheduled to hear the consolidated petitions on February 17
NEW DELHI: The Congress has filed an application in the Supreme Court to oppose petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, contending that the Act is a cornerstone of the country’s secular framework and that the challenges against it are malicious attempts to undermine established principles of secularism.

The intervention application, filed by Congress general secretary KC Venugopal, highlighted that the Act reflects the mandate of the Indian people, as it was enacted during the Congress-led government in collaboration with the Janata Dal. The party said the law was part of its election manifesto, demonstrating its commitment to preserving India’s communal harmony.
The party’s intervention came in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, a BJP leader, challenging the validity of the Act. Upadhyay’s plea claimed the law discriminates against Hindu, Sikh, Jain and Buddhist communities by freezing the religious character of places of worship as of August 15, 1947, with the sole exception of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya.
The application by the Congress, however, underscored that the 1991 Act is essential for maintaining communal harmony and upholding India’s secular ethos. The law protects the religious character of places of worship as they existed on the cut-off date and prevents the rekindling of historical disputes, it argued.
“The present challenge is not only legally baseless but also appears to have been filed with questionable motives,” contended the party, adding any alteration to this law risks jeopardising the country’s communal harmony and secular fabric, potentially threatening the sovereignty and integrity of the nation.
The Congress pointed out that the Supreme Court, in its landmark 2019 Ayodhya verdict, recognised the Act as a critical safeguard for secularism and a reflection of constitutional values.
Refuting claims of discrimination, the Congress stated: “The Act does not favour any religious group but promotes equality. It applies uniformly to all communities, ensuring that no group is disadvantaged or accorded special treatment.”
The party dismissed allegations that the law restricts Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists while exempting others, asserting that it is designed to preserve the status quo and prevent disputes over religious sites from escalating.
The 1991 Act has become a focal point in legal and political debates. Several Hindu litigants argue that it infringes on the fundamental rights of certain religious groups, particularly Hindus, to reclaim places of worship allegedly destroyed during historical invasions. Prominent challenges have come from BJP leaders such as Subramanian Swamy and Upadhyay.
In contrast, AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi and Muslim organisations such as the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind have supported the Act, urging the court to uphold its provisions to prevent communal tensions and preserve the secular fabric of the Constitution.
Owaisi’s petition, which was tagged with other cases by the Supreme Court on January 2, seeks strict enforcement of the Act and stresses its importance in preventing alterations to religious sites. The Supreme Court has scheduled a hearing on the consolidated petitions for February 17 before a bench led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna.
In November, Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Jha had filed an intervention application in the top court, asserting that the 1991 Act “does not violate any fundamental rights” under the Constitution
On December 12, the special bench, also comprising justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan, had barred courts across the country from entertaining fresh suits or ordering surveys to determine the religious character of places of worship. The order came amid escalating litigation by Hindu groups seeking surveys of mosques, including the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah Masjid in Mathura. The directive stayed proceedings in approximately 18 such lawsuits, which had sparked communal and political tensions.
On the day, the court also granted the Union government four weeks to clarify its stance on the Act, which has been awaited for over two years despite mounting petitions. Although the Supreme Court admitted petitions challenging the Act in March 2021, the Centre has refrained from filing a definitive response.
