The Gyanvapi Mosque management committee has moved the Supreme Court to oppose several pending petitions that challenge the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.

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.

The law, however, made only one exception -- dispute over the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid in Ayodhya.

The top court is already seized of about six petitions, including the PILs filed by lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay and former Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy, against certain provisions of the law.

The committee of management, Anjuman Intezamia Masajid, Varanasi, in its plea filed through lawyer Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, filed an intervention application in the top court seeking dismissal of the pending pleas against the 1991 law on the ground that they were based on "rhetorical and communal claims" that could disrupt communal harmony and the rule of law.

"That without lending much credence to the rhetorical claims made in the petition, the purported grievance of the petitioner as regards ancient rulers of the past cannot be addressed by this hon'ble court nor is a valid ground for challenging the constitutional validity of the 1991 Act,” the plea stated.

The committee said the pleas challenging a legislative enactment must indicate the unconstitutionality of the provisions based on constitutional principles.

"The rhetoric arguments seeking a sort of retribution against the perceived acts of previous rulers cannot be made the basis for a constitutional challenge..," it said.

It said the 1991 law was a "legislative instrument designed to protect the secular features of the Indian polity and an enforcement of constitutional commitment".

The mosque committee further underscored the potential "drastic consequences" of overturning the law, citing incidents like the Sambhal case, where a recent survey order reportedly triggered widespread protests and resulted in six fatalities.

The committee warned that repealing the Act could lead to a surge in disputes over religious sites across the country, prompting tensions in "every nook and corner" while threatening communal harmony.

The intervention plea 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.

The committee said the grievances raised in the petitions, centered on the alleged actions of ancient rulers, and couldn't serve as a legitimate basis for challenging the constitutional validity of the law.

It asserted that historical wrongs or perceived injustices of the past should not undermine the principles of secularism and non-retrogression upheld by the Act.

The 1991 law was interpreted and reaffirmed by a five-judge bench in the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi verdict, underlining its significance as a cornerstone of India’s secular framework, it said.

The top court, on January 9, 2023, sought responses of the Centre on pending pleas challenging certain provisions of a 1991 law that 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.

Upadhyay, in his PIL, sought setting aside of Sections 2, 3, 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 on various grounds, including that these provisions took away the right of judicial remedy to reclaim a place of worship of any person or a religious group.

The top court had also indicated that the pleas challenging the validity of certain provisions of the law may be referred to a five-judge Constitution bench for adjudication.

While Swamy wanted the apex court to "read down" certain provisions to enable Hindus to stake claim over the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah Mosque in Mathura, Upadhyay claimed the entire statute was unconstitutional and no question of reading it down arose.

The doctrine of reading down a law is generally used to save a statute from being struck down on account of its unconstitutionality.

The petition alleged that the 1991 law created an "arbitrary and irrational retrospective cut-off date" of August 15, 1947, for maintaining the character of the places of worship or pilgrimage against encroachment done by "fundamentalist-barbaric invaders and law-breakers".

Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by The Telegraph Online staff and has been published from a syndicated feed.