“The POW Act does not contravene any provisions of Part III of the Constitution. It is a settled principle of law that the constitutionality of any statute is presumed, and that the burden to prove that a statute or any part thereof is unconstitutional lies solely on the one alleging unconstitutionality,” the plea argued.The interim order in the Places of Worship Act case was passed on 12 December by a special bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, along with Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. V. Viswanathan.The bench was hearing a batch of petitions concerning the Act, which prohibits the conversion of the religious character of places of worship from their status as of 15 August 1947.Several petitions have been filed on the issue, some challenging the constitutionality of the Act and others calling for its strict implementation. Among the petitioners are Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who has sought the striking down of Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Act, and former Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy, who has requested that certain provisions of the Act be “read down” to enable Hindus to claim the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah Mosque in Mathura.Political parties including the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), Nationalist Congress Party (Sharad Pawar group), Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), and MPs such as Jitendra Awhad, Manoj Kumar Jha, Thol Thirumavalavan, and AIMIM Chief Asaduddin Owaisi have also filed applications supporting the Places of Worship Act.The Congress maintained that the Act promotes secularism and urged the Supreme Court to uphold its validity, underscoring its role in preserving communal harmony and equality.
Source link
