New Delhi: Solicitor general Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court on Wednesday, October 12, that the Ayodhya verdict “may not have covered” issues pertaining to the Places of Worship Act, 1991, according to his “personal view”, The Times of India reported.Mehta was speaking in the apex court during a hearing on petitions challenging certain provisions of the 1991 Act which prohibit conversion of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947. However, the Ayodhya land dispute was exempted from it.During the hearing, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay, told the court that his plea challenged the validity of certain provisions of the Act and that he had already circulated a set of questions of law which required consideration in the case.At this point, the court asked Mehta, “Mr. Solicitor, what is your personal sort of submission on this? Whether the matter is covered by the judgement in Ayodhya matter or not covered by that,” the court asked Mehta during the hearing.The solicitor general responded, saying, “May not be covered. Because that was in a different context. I do not know which side it would help, but since your lordships asked me my personal view, it cannot be coloured by this side or that side.”While granting the disputed land at Ayodhya to Hindus in November 2019, the court had said, “In providing a guarantee for the preservation of the religious character of places of public worship as they existed on 15 August 1947 and against the conversion of places of public worship, Parliament determined that independence from colonial rule furnishes a constitutional basis for healing the injustices of the past by providing the confidence to every religious community that their places of worship will be preserved and that their character will not be altered.”Hindu militants storm a disputed mosque-temple site on December 6, 1992climbing atop the building’s dome as they demolish it to clear the site for a Hindu temple. Photo: Reuters/Sunil MalhotraThe “personal view” of the solicitor general comes at a time when the Union government is expected to file its response to petitions challenging the validity of certain provisions of the 1991 law by October 31. The court asked relevant parties to provide written submissions of a list of questions pertaining to the law that need adjudication and posted the matter for hearing on November 14. The apex court had first issued notices to relevant parties, including the Union government, in March last year.The petitions, filed by advocate and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Ashwini Upadhyay, fellow BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and other Hindutva organisations, want Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 to be set aside on grounds that these provisions take away the right of judicial remedy to reclaim a place of worship of any person or a religious group, among other grounds.Also read: As Islamic Structures Are Targeted, Why Are Courts Ignoring the Places of Worship Act?The petitions were filed in the aftermath of the Ayodhya verdict by Hindutva organisations to seek a litigation route to stake claim over mosques at Gyanvapi in Varanasi and in Mathura. They claim that either neither Section 3 of the 1991 Act nor the Ayodhya verdict expressly bar ascertaining the religious character of the place of worship.During a hearing on September 9, the apex court had said the petitions can be referred to a five-judge constitution bench for adjudication and asked the Union government to file a reply.While BJP leader and former Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy wanted the apex court to “read down” certain provisions to enable Hindus to stake claim over mosques at Varanasi and Mathura respectively, Upadhyay claimed the entire statute was “unconstitutional and hence no question of reading down arises”.The doctrine of reading down a law is generally used to save a statute from being struck down on account of its unconstitutionality.On the other hand, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, represented by advocate Ejaz Maqbool, had referred to the five-judge constitution bench judgement in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title case and said since the 1991 law had been referred to there, it cannot be set aside now.Also read: Supreme Court’s Ayodhya Verdict Rests on a Glaring ContradictionTo this, the petitioners had contended that in the Ayodhya verdict, the apex court’s remarks were only obiter in nature and not binding.The top court had, on March 12 last year, sought the Union government’s response to the plea filed by Upadhyay challenging the validity of provisions of the law, which provide for maintaining the status quo concerning the ownership and the character of religious places as prevailing on August 15, 1947.The petition alleged that the 1991 law creates an “arbitrary and irrational retrospective cut-off date” of August 15, 1947 for maintaining the character of the places of worship or pilgrimage against encroachment done by “fundamentalist-barbaric invaders and law-breakers”.The 1991 provision is an Act to prohibit conversion of any place of worship and to provide for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947 and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.The law had made only one exception on the dispute pertaining to the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri masjid in Ayodhya.(With PTI inputs)