Thread by @barandbench

[Challenge to the Validity of the Places of Worship Act, 1991]

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi submits a list of questions of law arising for consideration by the court

#placesofworshipact

#SupremeCourt

Advocate Vrinda Grover for Jamiat Ulema i Hind: The response by the Central govt is not on record. SG Mehta had sought time to file a response. After the reply we will be in a position to file a rejoinder. #placesofworshipact

#SupremeCourt

SG Tushar Mehta: The reply is under consideration and whether to respond or not

CJI: When the challenge is to a central legislation, we will be guided by what is the stand of central government in this case. What is it now? we had granted time

SG:We need 2 weeks

#SupremeCourt

CJI: It is a 1991 act, most of the parliamentarians may not be there but it is there in form of records, parliamentary debates etc

SG: There are file notings as well. yes.
#placesofworshipact

#SupremeCourt

Judges discuss

#placesofworshipact
#SupremeCourt

Dwivedi: most of the challenge is spatial. It is rightly observed that we have to go through records. There is no debates etc.

CJI: Other side will argue that the ayodhya judgment dealt with the 1991 act

#placesofworshipact
#SupremeCourt

Dwivedi: validity of the act was not in question

CJI: So you will say all the discussion was obiter

Dwivedi: yes these questions are of national importance. now it is upto sc to determine validity

#placesofworshipact
#SupremeCourt

SC to SG: Is the 1991 act covered by the Ayodhya judgment? What is your personal view

SG Mehta: It is not covered.

#placesofworshipact
#SupremeCourt

Sr Adv Vikas Singh: the question of law is not elaborate. it is a neat question of law.

SG: It can be in first week of November, 2022

Judges discuss #placesofworshipact

Subhramanian Swamy @Swamy39 : The Solicitor General must respond to my petition

Dwivedi: we circulated our list of questions last week

CJI: SG please respond to these questions, if it arises or not. (to the petitioners and respondents) you also respond to the questions

Adv Grover: The second question is such that it makes us believe that reply from centre is just a preliminary requirement. we need atleast a week to reply after the centre submits a reply

CJI: then this bench cannot hear it anymore #placesofworshipact

Adv J Sai Deepak: There is a factual error if referring to ayodhya judgment since the para on 1991 verdict is from a 1995 judgment of this court. So reliance on Ramjanmabhoomi judgment is not correct. #placesofworshipact

CJI (Order): Mr Rakesh Dwivedi appearing for Petitioner has formulated a list of questions of law which as per him arises and needs to be considered by this court. Mr Sinha submits there are 2 additional questions which would need consideration #PlacesOfWorshipAct

CJI: On the last occasion Mr Mehta (SG) had prayed for sometime to place his submissions on record by way of affidavit in reply. He has sought 2 more weeks. Let the reply be filed on or before October 31, 2022.

CJI: Ms Grover appearing for petitioners submits after reply by Centre, She would also respond and that if an additional questions arise in the matter be included. after all such questions are collated,

CJI: Ms Grover and any other counsel may inform Adv Kanu Agarwal within 7 days of reply, Mr Agarwal will collate the questions so that attention of court can be focussed on these questions.

CJI: Mr Agarwal shall share copy of such convenience compilations with lawyer of all parties in digital mode. Thereafter all counsels to submit written submissions not exceeding 3 pages. list for directions on November 14, 2022. #PlacesOfWorshipAct

CJI: Issue formal notice in all the petitions. #PlacesOfWorshipAct