Journalism of Courage
A former BJP MP has moved the Supreme Court challenging the validity of certain sections of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.
The plea filed by Chintamani Malviya challenged the constitutional validity of sections 2, 3 and 4 of the 1991 Act, claiming that they violate the principles of secularism.
Malviya, a resident of Ujjain in Madhya Pradesh, submitted that the Act is void and unconstitutional for many reasons.
It has sought a direction from the court to declare sections 2, 3, 4 of the 1991 Act as void and unconstitutional for being violative of fundamental rights so far as it seeks to validate “places of worship”, illegally made by barbaric invaders.
The plea claimed the provisions of the law not only offended fundamental rights to equality, non-discrimination and freedom to practice religion but also principles of secularism which is an integral part of the Preamble and the basic structure of the Constitution.
Several other pleas, including one filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, challenging the validity of certain provisions of the 1991 Act have already been filed in the apex court.
Recently, the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind has filed a plea in the top court seeking intervention in a pending petition which has challenged the constitutional validity of sections 2, 3, and 4 of the 1991 Act.
