On the 12th of December 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that no further petitions will be registered against the Places of Worship Act while the pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the Act are being heard. A special bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Viswanathan issued a directive that no effective interim or final orders should be passed by lower courts, including orders for surveys, until the court decides on the constitutionality of the Act. In addition, the Centre was given four weeks to file its response.
The Supreme Court directive came at a time when a nationwide debate is ongoing over the disputed Sambhal Jama Masjid, which the Hindu side contends to be the Harihar temple, the Gyanvapi-Kashi Vishwanath dispute, and the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi dispute among others wherein the crux of the issue demolition and subsequent encroachment and construction of mosques by Islamic invaders like Babur.
While the Muslim side sees the Places of Worship Act (1991) as no less than a protective shield in facilitating its encroachment of ASI-protected and erstwhile Hindu religious sites, the Hindu side views it as opposed to the principles of natural justice. As the fate of this Act relies on the judgment of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Viswanathan, let’s take a look at the career trajectory of these judges.
CJI Sanjiv Khanna
Sanjiv Khanna is the nephew of former Supreme Court Judge Hans Raj Khanna, who infamously took on Indira Gandhi’s government in 1976. Inspired by his uncle, Justice Sanjiv Khanna enrolled at the Bar Council of Delhi in 1983 and was appointed to the Delhi High Court as an Additional Judge in 2005. Justice Khanna was thereafter elevated to the Supreme Court in January 2019. He is set to serve in the capacity of Chief Justice of India for a brief period of 6 months until 13th May 2025.
On the 11th of November 2024, Justice Sanjiv Khanna was sworn in as the 51st Chief Justice of India.
He was a part of the 7-Judge Bench that overruled the 1967 Azeez Basha case, which denied minority status to Aligarh Muslim University. CJI Sanjiv Khanna and three other judges directed that the status of AMU be freshly determined based on the tests laid down in that particular case (Aligarh Muslim University Through its Registrar Faizan Mustafa v Naresh Agarwal).
In April 2024, he along with Justice Dipankar Dutta shot down [pdf] a petition filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), seeking 100% VVPAT verification of votes cast on Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). Justice Khanna was previously part of the 2019 Bench that increased the number of booths, which undergo VVPAT physical verification, from 1 to 5 per Assembly Segment.
In February this year, Justice Khanna was part of a 5-judge bench that dubbed the electoral bond scheme ‘unconstitutional.’ Justice Khanna in a concurring judgment dismissed the argument that donor privacy applied to donations made through banks. He noted that bank officials are aware of the identities of the donors who purchased the bonds.
He was part of the 5-Judge Bench that unanimously upheld the constitutionality of abrogation of Article 370. In a concurring judgment, Justice Khanna stated that the removal of Article 370 did not undermine India’s federal structure.
In 2019, Justice Khanna did not interfere with the decision of the Election Commission of India (ECI), which stalled the release of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s biopic amid the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC). He was also part of the Bench which rejected the Centre’s petition to increase the compensation given to victims of the 1984 Bhopal Gas Tragedy. The apex court contended that the settlement could be set aside only on grounds of ‘fraud’, which was not pleaded by the Centre.
He along with 4 other Judges also upheld that the Supreme Court has the authority to grant divorce to couples using its discretionary powers under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution without the need to approach lower courts (Shilpa Sailesh v Varun Sreenivasan). In 2018, Justice Khanna also ruled in favour of the decriminalisation of adultery in Joseph Shine v Union of India.
In August this year, Justice Sanjiv Khanna was a part of the bench that challenged the DK Marathe College’s ban on hijab, questioning why the prohibition had not been applied to other religious markers like tilak and bindi although the College contended that the dress code applied to students of all religions and castes.
In September this year, Khanna led the bench which granted bail of former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who was arrested by the CBI in connection with the Delhi Liquor Scam.
In November this year, a bench led by CJI Khanna stopped the Sambhal court from proceeding with the survey order till the Jama Masjid Commitee’s plea was listed in the High Court.
On 25th November, a bench comprising CJI Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar rejected several petitions contesting the use of the terms “socialist” and “secular” in the Constitution’s Preamble under the 42nd Amendment passed in 1976 during the emergency imposed by former Prime Minister late Indira Gandhi. The bench, which included Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar noted that the Preamble is also subject to parliamentary amending authority and added that the Preamble’s adoption date does not limit the Parliament’s ability to make changes to it. The retrospective argument was dismissed on this basis.
CJI Khanna stated that “being socialist” in the Indian context only refers to a “welfare state”. “The way we understand socialism in India is very different from other countries. In our context, socialism primarily means a welfare state. That is all. It has never prevented the private sector which is thriving well. We have all benefited from it. The word socialism is used in a different context, meaning that the state is a welfare state and must stand for the welfare of the people and shall provide equality of opportunities,” he said.
CJI Khanna is also known for his observations on ‘secularism’. As the Supreme Court judge in August 2023, he called the alleged call for boycott of Muslims as “unacceptable”.
Controversy: Justice Khanna’s elevation to the Supreme Court was a bit controversial since he superseded 32 judges, sparking debates on the collegium system’s selection criteria.
Justice KV Vishwanathan
Born on 26th May 1966, in, Kerala’s Kalpathy, KV Vishwanathan graduated from Coimbatore Law College, Bharathiar University. In the year 2009, the Supreme Court designated Vishwanathan as a Senior Advocate, after 20 years of legal practice. In August 2013, he was appointed the Additional Solicitor General of India who served as ASG till May 2014. In 2023, he was ascended directly from the Bar to the Supreme Court. With this, he became the 10th advocate to be appointed to the Supreme Court without any prior High Court-level judicial experience.
As a lawyer, KV Vishwanathan represented petitioners in several noted cases like the Right to Privacy and the validity of the Aadhaar Act, the case involving a challenge to WhatsApp’s privacy policy wherein he represented the Internet Freedom Foundation. In addition, Vishwanathan advocated for the recognition of the marriages and rights of transgender people. “Centre says that by our very nature, we cannot procreate. Is procreation a valid defence from keeping us from effects of marriage? None of the marriage statutes prescribe any upper limit for marriage. Women beyond 45, who are unfit for pregnancy, are allowed to marry. Heterosexual couples who cannot have children are allowed to marry,” he argued in this case. Notably, Vishwanathan also represented YSRCP leader Jagan Mohan Reddy in the disproportionate assets case filed by the CBI.
As the Supreme Court judge, Justice Vishwanathan delivered certain notable judgments. In the K.P. Khemka v. Haryana SIIDC case, Justice Vishwanathan was involved in deciding whether time-barred debts might be recovered using special legislation rather than civil suits. This case raised important issues about the junction of legislative limitations and recovery mechanisms.
Recently, Justice Vishwanathan alongside Justice BR Gavai directed the Central government to grant a permanent commission to a woman officer serving in the Army Dental Corps. This came as the woman officer had alleged that she was unfairly excluded from the benefits available to her colleagues. The bench noted that it was a case of discrimination and stressed the necessity to implement policies in a fair and consistent manner.
Justice Viswanathan has also been vocal about revising bail proceedings. He raised concern over the alleged abuse of incarceration as a pre-trial punishment and called for reforms to end bail delays, particularly for undertrial inmates. Alongside Justice BR Gavai, while granting relief to Jharkhand CM Hemant Soren’s aide, Prem Prakash, in an illegal mining-related case filed by the Enforcement Directorate, he said that even in PMLA cases, bail should be the norm and jail should be the exception. “Section 45 PMLA does not re-write this principle [that bail is the rule] to mean that deprivation is the norm and liberty is the exception..” he stated.
Notably, Justice Viswanathan was a member of the SC bench that deemed ‘bulldozer justice’ “unconstitutional” on the 13th November, stating that the right to shelter is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The bench held the verdict that state authorities cannot determine the guilt of a person and alleged crimes cannot be the basis for demolishing a person’s house or properties. Determining the guilt of an individual is the job of the judiciary, the verdict said.
During the hearing of please challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship Act (1991), Justice Vishwanathan said, civil courts cannot “run a race with the Supreme Court” when a Constitution bench has laid down certain principles regarding the Act.
Justice PV Sanjay Kumar
Born in Hyderabad in 1963, PV Sanjay Kumar obtained his law degree in 1988 and later served as a government pleader from 2000 to 2003. In August 2008, Kumar was elevated as an additional judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. In October 2019, despite being the second senior-most judge, in Telangana High Court, he was transferred to the Punjab and Haryana HC. His transfer was widely opposed by the Telangana Advocates Association given that he was likely to become the next CJI of the state high Court. However, he was transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court and later served as the Chief Justice of the Manipur High Court in 2021.
In the 2024, Mumbai college Hijab ban case, Justice Kumar alongside CJI Khanna stayed the ban questioning why the prohibition had not been applied to other religious markers like tilak and bindi. “Can you forbid someone from wearing a tilak? Is this not included in your guidelines?” Justice Kumar questioned.
In April this year, Justice Kumar alongside Justice Aniruddha Bose allowed Karikho Kri’s appeal and set aside the impugned order in a group of two civil appeals against the Itanagar Bench’s decision, in which the High Court partially allowed the election petition holding Karikho Kri’s election from 44 Tezu (ST) void under Sections 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Bench held that the broad premise that a candidate must lay his life out for scrutiny by the electorate is unacceptable, and the candidate’s ‘right to privacy’ would still exist.
In April 2023, Justice Kumar was a part of the Supreme Court bench that stayed Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s conviction in the Modi surname defamation case and restored his status as a Member of Parliament. While pronouncing the judgement, the 3-judge bench observed that the utterances of Rahul Gandhi were not in “good taste” and said that a person in public life ought to have been more careful while making public speeches. However, questioned why the maximum sentence was given, which led to his disqualification.
In 2021, a division bench of the then Manipur HC CJI Sanjay Kumar and Justice Jamir decided that although India has no proper refugee protection framework, it does grant refuge to refugees coming from neighbouring countries. The court ordered that seven Myanmarese people must initially approach the UNHCR in New Delhi before the Union of India can determine whether they are eligible for refugee status and asylum in India.
In the 2012, Shaik Farid vs Government of Andhra Pradesh case, an Andhra Pradesh HC bench including Justice Sanjay Kumar was to decide whether the term of the Members of the Waqf Board is co-terminus or concurrent with their terms as MPs. In this case, the court held that the expiry of an MP’s tenure or of the state legislature does not impact his elected membership of the Waqf Board.
Places of Worship Act and the “exemption
Back in 1991, the PV Narasimha Rao-led Congress regime passed the Places of Worship Act to protect the religious character of places of worship as they existed in 1947, with the exception of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid issue, which was already in court. It also provided for the preservation of the religious character of such a place of worship on that particular day.
As per this Act, a site of worship’s religious character must remain the same as it was on August 15, 1947. The law also says that nobody ever shall translate any religious denomination’s holy site into one of a distinct denomination or section. In addition, the law asserts that each and every lawsuit, appeal, or other proceedings pertaining to changing the character of the area of worship pending before any court or authority on August 15, 1947, will be terminated as soon as the legislation becomes effective, meaning there cannot be any further legal proceedings. Furthermore, the act also imposes a positive obligation on the state to maintain the religious character of every place of worship as it existed at the time of independence.
However, the Act also mentions a crucial exception. Legal proceedings can be filed under the Places of Worship Act of 1991 if the change of status occurred after the August 15, 1947 deadline. This prevents judicial proceedings, litigation, and appeals over the possibility of status that occurred after the cut-off date. Furthermore, the law exempts any place of worship that is an ancient and historical monument or archaeological site protected by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act of 1958. This means that if a place of worship of any religion is designated as an ancient and historical monument or archaeological site, it may be exempt from the Places of Worship Act.
