All disputes relating to places of worship cannot be brought to SC under Article 32: Supreme Court

All disputes relating to places of worship cannot be brought before the Supreme Court by invoking Place of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 and freedom of religion under Article 25, the top court said on Friday [Sharad Zaveri vs Union of India]..When there is a dispute between two segments of same community as regards place of worship, the same might require leading of evidence and, hence, the correct forum for remedy is the trial court by invoking the jurisdiction under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and not Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, the Court said.The parties in such cases should, therefore, file a civil suit and contest the matter before the trial court, the Court added."The nature of rights have to be duly established on basis of evidence. Mere fact that 1991 Places of Worship Act is invoked it is not enough to entertain a plea under Article 32 since rights have to be established by trial in a civil suit," ordered the two-judge bench.The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and JB Pardiwala was dealing with a case in which petitioners, who were followers of Mohijeet samudyay of the Shwetambar murti Poojan sect, were aggrieved by the illegal and rampant conversion of places of worship common to the entire Tapagacch denomination into places of worship for only a particular section within the Tapagacch denomination. .Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the basis of the plea was right under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution and that if the plea is not entertained then the Article would be "dead letter.".The petitioners urged that if such places of worship meant for the entire Tapagachh denomination is permitted to be converted into a place of worship for just one section, then the fundamental right of other sections to profess, practice and propagate their religion will be infringed..However, the bench noted that this was a dispute within the same religious denomination and that just by invoking Places of Worship Act the jurisdiction of the top court under Article 32 could not be entertained. ."This is not a case of conversion at all. Assuming that 1991 act applies to this case, over last 100 years apart from litigations under CPC, there have been innumerable such cases under section 92 of CPC which is from wings of the same community," observed the bench. .Justice Chandrachud said it would be problematic if CpC is not followed."We want to convert all civil cases into criminal ones. You have a remedy under Section 92 of CPC. Entertaining this means evidence will have to be given and some monk has to step into evidence box!" said Justice Chandrachud..The Supreme Court thus noted in its order that the dispute in present case is essentially between two segments of same community and that "the resolution of this dispute cannot be decided under Article 32."Thus petitioners are granted liberty to pursue their civil remedies," the two-judge bench said while refusing to entertain the plea. .[Read Live Thread].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.