File affidavit by October 31 on pleas challenging its validity: SC

Update: 2022-10-12 17:32 GMT

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Centre to furnish by October 31 its affidavit in response to petitions challenging the validity of certain provisions of a 1991 law, which prohibit filing of a lawsuit to reclaim a place of worship or seek a change in its character from what prevailed on August 15, 1947.

A bench headed by CJI Lalit was told Centre has not yet filed its response to the petitions, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the government, said it is under consideration as to what to respond to and whether to respond.

The bench, also comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and S R Bhat, asked Mehta how much time was required to submit the affidavit.

"Two weeks, that is what my instruction is," Mehta said, adding some time was needed considering the sensitivity of the matter.

"On the last occasion, Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, had prayed for some time to place his submissions on record by way of an affidavit in response. Solicitor General prays for further time of two weeks to do the needful. Let the affidavit in that behalf be filed on or before October 31," the bench said.

The top court was hearing the pleas, including the one filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay who has said sections 2, 3, 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 be set aside on grounds including that these provisions take away the right of judicial remedy to reclaim a place of worship of any person or a religious group.

During the hearing, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for Upadhyay, told the bench his plea challenges the validity of certain provisions of the Act and that he has circulated a set of questions of law which requires consideration in this case.

"Mr Solicitor, what is your personal sort of submission on this? Whether the matter is covered by the judgement in Ayodhya matter or not covered by that," the court asked Mehta during the hearing.

The solicitor general responded, saying, "May not be covered. Because that was in a different context. I do not know which side it would help, but since your lordships asked me my personal view, it cannot be coloured by this side or that side."

Similar News