However, the dispute relating to Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid at Ayodhya was kept out of its purview.Muslim bodies like Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind seek strict implementation of the 1991 law to maintain communal harmony and to preserve the present status of mosques, sought to be reclaimed by Hindus claiming that they were temples before “invaders” razed them.On the other hand, petitioners like Updhyay have sought setting aside of Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Act.Among the reasons was also the contention that these provisions took away the right of judicial remedy to reclaim a place of worship of any person or a religious group.”Ultimately, we will have to hear the arguments,” the bench had said, observing the primary issue was with regard to Section 3 and 4 of the 1991 law.While Section 3 deals with the bar of conversion of places of worship, Section 4 pertains to declarations as to the religious character of certain places of worship and bar of jurisdiction of courts, etc.The Gyanvapi Mosque management committee, in its intervention plea, opposed several pending petitions that challenge the constitutional validity of the 1991 law.The mosque committee listed a series of contentious claims made over the years concerning various mosques and dargahs (shrines), including the Shahi Idgah Masjid in Mathura, the Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque near Delhi’s Qutub Minar, the Kamal Maula Mosque in Madhya Pradesh, and others.It, therefore, said the petitions challenging the Act were filed with “mischievous intent” to facilitate lawsuits against these religious sites, which the 1991 Act currently protected.
Source link
