A mosque committee on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that the Centre was “deliberately” delaying its response to the petitions challenging or defending the Places of Worship Act, 1991, and urged the bench to go ahead with the hearings foreclosing the Union government’s right to reply.

The management committee of the Shahi Masjid Idgah in Mathura is one of the co-petitioners defending the Act, which forbids the conversion of a place of worship of one religion into that of another and is seen by its defenders as a cornerstone of Indian secularism.

The mosque committee is also contesting petitions that claim the Idgah stands on Krishna’s birthplace and the site should therefore be handed over to Hindus.

In an urgent application filed through advocate R.H.A. Sikander, the committee argued that the Centre was intentionally desisting from filing its counter-affidavit, despite several directives from the apex court over more than three years, to delay the proceedings.

It flagged how, in its order of September 9, 2022, the apex court had noted that the government had not filed its response despite a notice having been issued to it on March 12, 2021, to reply within two weeks.

On October 12, 2022, the court had issued a fresh directive asking the Centre to file its counter-affidavit on or before October 31, but the Union government failed to do so.

An apex court order dated December 12, 2024, noted the Centre’s failure to respond in more than three years and directed that it file a reply within four weeks. Those four weeks have passed but the government hasn’t responded, the committee complained.

“…The Union of India is deliberately not filing its counter-affidavit/ reply vis-a-vis the challenge to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, with the intention to delay the hearing of the present writ petition and the connected writ petitions, thereby obstructing those who are opposing the challenge to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, in filing their respective written submissions/ responses, as the stand of the Union of India would have a bearing on the same,” the mosque committee said.

“…Since this hon’ble court has fixed the date of hearing of the present writ petition and the connected writ petitions as 17.02.2025, it would be in the interest of justice if the right of the Union of India to file its counter-affidavit/ reply/ pleadings/ submissions, is closed.”

Some Hindu petitioners have challenged the 1991 Act’s constitutionality, arguing that by restricting Hindus’ right to reclaim places of worship that had been forcibly converted to those of another religion, it validates religious vandalism by invaders.

In response, multiple petitions have been moved in defence of the 1991 Act, portraying it as key to upholding secularism and communal harmony.

Section 3 of the 1991 act debars the conversion of a place of worship of any religious denomination, or a section of it, into a place of worship of a different religious denomination or of a different segment of the same religious denomination.

Section 4 mandates the preservation of the religious character of a place ofworship as it existed onAugust 15, 1947.

The Act makes a lone exception — for the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya.

The Indian Union Muslim League has in its intervention application argued that the Act’s relevance is underscored by the recent violence in Sambhal during the survey of a mosque, conducted to ascertain whether it was built over a demolished temple.