INSUBCONTINENT EXCLUSIVE:
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it was not possible to order a blanket stay on proceedings initiated in various locations for
reclaiming places of worship on the ground that the Places of Worship Act, 1991, prohibits changes in the religious character of structures
existing prior to 1947.During the hearing on a bunch of petitions challenging provisions of the Places of Worship Act that prohibits Hindus
from reclaiming their religious places allegedly destroyed and converted to mosques under Muslim rulers, advocate Vrinda Grover urged a
bench led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud to pass an omnibus order staying all proceedings before courts across the country seeking to
change the religious character of pre-1947 structures.The CJI said since the Places of Worship Act was in operation, it would be open for
parties concerned to point out its provisions to courts where such proceedings are pending and seek stay.The SC granted the Union government
time till October 31 to file its response to the petitions challenging the provisions of Places of Worship Act, which froze the character of
religious buildings as existing on August 15, 1947.While most petitions, including a PIL by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, challenged provisions
to be constructed over Kashi Vishwanath temple) and Mathura (Shahi Idgah allegedly built over the Krishna Janmasthan temple) on the lines of
the three-decade-old legislation exempting the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid disputed site from the law.The 1991 legislation forbidding
changes in the status of religious structures was enacted by the P V Narasimha Rao-led Congress government against the backdrop of
agitations to reclaim the three sites for Hindus.The Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute in Ayodhya was the only exception made in the 1991
law as the suits were pending before the trial court since 1949
A five-judge bench led by then CJI Ranjan Gogoi had on November 9, 2019, unanimously decided to award the disputed land to Hindus saying
they produced better evidence on ownership but had asked the government to compensate Muslims with an alternative five-acre plot at a
prominent place in Ayodhya.Last year, a three-judge SC bench had formulated 11 questions on the PILs challenging the validity of several
