The Indian Government can not defend Hindu women against the Allah kafirs. This systematical attempt of convertion and barbarism against…
*Hindu Rights to Survive with Dignity & Sovereignty *Join Hindu Freedom Movement to make Bharat Hindu Rashtra within 2025 *Jai Shri Ram *Jayatu Jayatu Hindu Rashtram *Editor: Upananda Brahmachari.
Upendra Bharti | HENB | New Delhi | June 13, 2020:: The Places of Worship (Special Provision) Act, 1991 (Parliament Act no. 42 of 1991) was enacted on 18.09.1991 by the then Congress Govt. to subside the chances of frequent Hindu movement for reclaiming the Temples destroyed by the barbaric Islamic rulers. The Act was promulgated so by the then PM P V Narasimha Rao only to curb other Hindu movements in awaiting in the line of Ram Janmabhoomi Andolan.
Section 4 of The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 clearly mentions, “It is hereby declared that the religious character of a place of worship existing on the 15th day of August, 1947 shall continue to be the same as it existed on that day”. (Sub section 1)
It also denotes that “(d) any conversion of any such place effected before such commencement by acquiescence; (e) any conversion of any such place effected before such commencement which is not liable to be challenged in any court, tribunal or other authority being barred by limitation under any law for the time being in force. (Sub section 2.d & e).
Though the Sec. 5 of the Act was instrumented so, “not to apply (the Act) to Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid, (anyway)”.
In this draconian Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, the Hindus were tried to be stooped out from their rights to worship in their ancient temples and shrines which were desecrated and destroyed by the Mughals and Islamic rulers or to deny all claims of Hindus for their ancient Holy places defiled by the Quran followers.
Now, Vishwa Bhadra Pujari Purohit Mahasangh knocked the door of Supreme court of India with a writ petition to declare Section 4 of The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 (Parliament Act no. 42 of 1991) as ultra virus to Article 14, 15(1), 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and consequently void the same act to restore the rights of worship of Hindus.
The Writ petition was filed with Diary No. 12395-2020 on 08-06-2020 by Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain on behalf of Vishwa Bhadra Pujari Purohit Mahasangh and was successfully registered with registration no. W.P.(C) No.-000559/2020 on 11.06.2020.
It is known from source that senior and eminent Ram Janmabhoomi Andolan Advocate Sri Hari Shankar Jain Advocate has given consent to appear and argue the Vishwa Bhadra Pujari Purohit Mahasangh & Ors. -vs- Union of India case.
From the petition it is known, “that after the invasion of Mohammad Gori from the year 1192 constantly India remained under Mughal rule till independence i.e. for more than 700 years and during this period a number of atrocities which cannot be expressed in words were committed including the demolition of Hindu places of worship/temples. The parliament has no legislative competence to legalize all those actions in view of the provisions contained in sub-clause (1) of Article 13 of the Constitution of India all the previous action offending right to religion guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution became void and nonest with the enforcement of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the impugned provision of Act 1991 is ultra virus to the provisions of the Constitution and is void by virtue of sub-clause (2) to Article 13 of the Constitution of India.
“That every citizen of a nation after its independence has a right to restore its past glory and to nullify the spots and signs of slavery and atrocities committed and continuing and all the actions offending religious sentiments of the countrymen. Every citizen has a duty to make every endeavour to get back the past glory of the nation and the parliament cannot curtail such a right and cannot enact a law which legalizes barbarian inhumane action committed by the invaders. The Parliament is required to respect the international law and particularly to those declarations to which India is a signatory. It is matter of record that in several declarations of United Nations Organization (UNO) has declared that after independence the citizens of the country have a right to restore the demolished/damaged religious structures and to remove the signs of atrocities committed during the rule of any invader”.
As, ” sub-section (1) to Section 4 of Act 1991 restricts the right of citizens to secure and protect the cultural heritage of religious importance and in performance of religious rights by Hindus guaranteed and protected by Article 25 of the Constitution of India. It is a historical fact that in the year 1192 the invader Mohammad Gori after defeating the king of the country Prithviraj Chauhan established the rule governed by Islamic Law and such period of foreign rule continued up to 15th August 1947, therefore, any cut off date could be the date on which India was conquered by invader, namely, Mohammad Gori and all the places of worship of Hindus as were existing on the said date have to be restored in the same position with the same glory to provide the members of Hindu community the solace and opportunity to resume/regain their religious places with all rights,” the writ amplifies for its gain of points.
“That Hindu Law was a ‘law in force’ at the commencement of the Constitution by virtue of Article 372(1) of the Constitution of India.
“That Hindus have fundamental right under Article 25 of the Constitution of India to profess, practise and propagate their religion as provided in Vedas, Shasthras, Upnishads, Smrities and religious scriptures subject to public order morality and health.
“That Article 13(2) of the Constitution of India prohibits the State from making any law which takes away or abridges the rights of the citizens conferred by part -III of the Constitution of India and any law made in contravention to fundamental rights of the citizens is void.
“That in view of the embargo created by the Constitution the Parliament has no power to enact any law in derogation of the personal law of Hindus in force at the commencement of the Constitution or curtail such right in violation of the rights conferred in Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.
“That every citizen under Article 29 (1) of the Constitution of India has fundamental right to preserve its distinct, language, script or culture. These elements are found in ancient religious structure and same is part of religious and cultural heritage of India. The impugned Act violates the right conferred under Article 29(1) of the Constitution of India.
“That Citizens of India apart from having fundamental right to worship all the ancient places of worship and administer the same, have fundamental duty to preserve and protect the cultural heritage of the country and for that purpose such right and duty can be asserted through Court of law to get justice.
“That it is relevant to mention that invaders during 1192 to 1947 have damaged, destroyed and desecrated Hindu Temples and religious places depicting Indian cultural from North to South, East to West constructed hundreds of year ago and they have occupied the same under Military power and some monuments are still lying in dilapidated condition.
“That the Parliament by the impugned Act has destroyed the Hindu law relating to deity as the deity and its property is never lost and devotees has right to sue a wrongdoer for restoration of temple and status of deity.
“That the crux of the matter in every case would be as to whether the any Hindu religious structure was initially in existence over which the members of another faith have raised construction or such encroachers are utilizing the Temple and the property for the use of their religion.
“That it cannot be disputed that at the temple site of Hindus no construction of another faith can be constructed and such construction does not yield any right and equity in favour of the usurper.
“That according to Hindu law the property once vested will continue to be deity’s property.
“According to Muslim law on creation of waqf the property vests in ‘Allah”.
“That the pertinent question is as to whether a Waqf can be created over a deity property and such property can be assumed to be a waqf by user.
“That the Question is as to whether Hindu law will be applicable to the properties which have been encroached upon during invaders Rule or even after independence the ghost of slavery will continue to haunt the sentiments of Hindu public and they should consider themselves remedy less or helpless to remedy the wrong through legal process even after enforcement of Constitution.
“That after independence the subjects depressed and oppressed during slave period have a right to establish through legal means their right to worship and send a message to everybody that it is the power of pen not the sword, is mighty and will prevail.
“That as a matter of reference it is submitted that in the recent past Talibanis demolished Budhha Statue following the line of their predecessor invaders coming from Turkistan, Mongolia through Afghanistan to India during Medieval Age.
“That it is relevant to mention that in 1990 and thereafter in Kashmir Valley in free India hundreds of temples in existence since before 15th August 1947 have been demolished/ destroyed by ultras and unsocial elements in connivance with Terrorist Organizations.
“That the question is as to whether applying the places of worship Act the Central Government will be able to maintain the status of those temples with all glory as was on 15th August 1947 in Kashmir Valley.
“That the impugned Act has been enacted for maintaining public order. “Public order” is a State subject falling in List II item 1 of seventh schedule of the Constitution of India. The Parliament has no legislative competence to legislate of State subject.
“The impugned Act also violates the principles of secularism and State cannot interfere in the religious matters of a community.
“That in the garb of concept of secular State in justice cannot be done with the cultural and religious history of the country and it will be height of injustice if in the name of secularism the rights of Hindus are junked.
“That in a Nation’s history ancient religious and cultural heritage plays a vital role to make propose Nation. We cannot say a good by to our old ethos and cultural legacy.
“That every nation has a cultural and religious legacy and its subjects are bound to glorify the same and they have every right to be proud of their religious and cultural heritage.
“That principle of secularism as acceptable in Indian context reflect in Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India, according to which, the State shall not deny any person equality before the law or equal protection of the law and that sate will not make any discrimination only on the basis of creed, caste, religion or place of birth.
“That on the touch stone of the principle of the secularism read with Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India it is very clear that state cannot show its inclination or hostile attitude towards any religion, may be majority or minority community.
“That impugned violates the principle of secularism as same has been made to curb right of Hindus for liberation of cultural and religious places damaged/ destroyed before 15th August 1947 even through process of Court,” the petition elaborately raises so many points to stay with its position to restore Hindu Rights of Worship in their ancient temples and shrines desecrated and destroyed by barbaric Muslim Rulers and at the same time to deny the indulgence of Islamic encroachment on Hindu places of worship during Islamic period in India.
The advocate on record of the instant case Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain told HENB that the date of hearing is yet to fix by the apex court, but he expects a big win for the Hindu parties so that they can regain their rights over ancient and even ruined temples like Somnath and Ayodhya.
Hindu interlocutor and Hindu Existence Website Editor, Upananda Brahmachari expressed his concern to delete the Sec. 4 of The Places of Worship (Special Provision) Act, 1991 and conveyed his support and good wishes to Vishwa Bhadra Pujari Purohit Mahasangh for filing this unique case for Hindus.
___With Agency Inputs.