Fresh Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Places Of Worship Act, 1991

New Delhi: One more plea challenging the Constitutional validity of certain sections of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991, saying that the Act violates the principles of secularism, was filed in the Supreme Court on Thursday. The plea filed by Rudra Vikram Singh, resident of Varanasi, challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991. According to Vikram's plea, the said sections offend Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, and 29 and violate the principles of secularism and the rule of law, which are an integral part of the Preamble and the basic structure of the Constitution. "It is respectfully submitted that the Central Government, by making impugned provision (Places of Worship Act 1991) in the year of 1991 has created arbitrary irrational retrospective cut off date, declared that character of places of worship and pilgrimage shall be maintained as it was on 15 August 1947 and no suit or proceeding shall lie in the court in respect to the dispute against encroachment done by barbaric fundamentalist invaders and such proceeding shall stand abated," the PIL stated. Yesterday on Wednesday, another plea was filed by a religious leader Swami Jeetendranand Saraswati against the 1991 Act. That plea said that Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Act have taken away the right to approach the Court and thus the right to judicial remedy has been closed.

New Delhi: One more plea challenging the Constitutional validity of certain sections of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991, saying that the Act violates the principles of secularism, was filed in the Supreme Court on Thursday. The plea filed by Rudra Vikram Singh, resident of Varanasi, challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991. According to Vikram's plea, the said sections offend Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, and 29 and violate the principles of secularism and the rule of law, which are an integral part of the Preamble and the basic structure of the Constitution. "It is respectfully submitted that the Central Government, by making impugned provision (Places of Worship Act 1991) in the year of 1991 has created arbitrary irrational retrospective cut off date, declared that character of places of worship and pilgrimage shall be maintained as it was on 15 August 1947 and no suit or proceeding shall lie in the court in respect to the dispute against encroachment done by barbaric fundamentalist invaders and such proceeding shall stand abated," the PIL stated. Yesterday on Wednesday, another plea was filed by a religious leader Swami Jeetendranand Saraswati against the 1991 Act. That plea said that Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Act have taken away the right to approach the Court and thus the right to judicial remedy has been closed.New Delhi: One more plea challenging the Constitutional validity of certain sections of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991, saying that the Act violates the principles of secularism, was filed in the Supreme Court on Thursday. The plea filed by Rudra Vikram Singh, resident of Varanasi, challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991. According to Vikram's plea, the said sections offend Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, and 29 and violate the principles of secularism and the rule of law, which are an integral part of the Preamble and the basic structure of the Constitution. "It is respectfully submitted that the Central Government, by making impugned provision (Places of Worship Act 1991) in the year of 1991 has created arbitrary irrational retrospective cut off date, declared that character of places of worship and pilgrimage shall be maintained as it was on 15 August 1947 and no suit or proceeding shall lie in the court in respect to the dispute against encroachment done by barbaric fundamentalist invaders and such proceeding shall stand abated," the PIL stated. Yesterday on Wednesday, another plea was filed by a religious leader Swami Jeetendranand Saraswati against the 1991 Act. That plea said that Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Act have taken away the right to approach the Court and thus the right to judicial remedy has been closed.New Delhi: One more plea challenging the Constitutional validity of certain sections of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991, saying that the Act violates the principles of secularism, was filed in the Supreme Court on Thursday. The plea filed by Rudra Vikram Singh, resident of Varanasi, challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991. According to Vikram's plea, the said sections offend Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, and 29 and violate the principles of secularism and the rule of law, which are an integral part of the Preamble and the basic structure of the Constitution. "It is respectfully submitted that the Central Government, by making impugned provision (Places of Worship Act 1991) in the year of 1991 has created arbitrary irrational retrospective cut off date, declared that character of places of worship and pilgrimage shall be maintained as it was on 15 August 1947 and no suit or proceeding shall lie in the court in respect to the dispute against encroachment done by barbaric fundamentalist invaders and such proceeding shall stand abated," the PIL stated. Yesterday on Wednesday, another plea was filed by a religious leader Swami Jeetendranand Saraswati against the 1991 Act. That plea said that Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Act have taken away the right to approach the Court and thus the right to judicial remedy has been closed.New Delhi: One more plea challenging the Constitutional validity of certain sections of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991, saying that the Act violates the principles of secularism, was filed in the Supreme Court on Thursday. The plea filed by Rudra Vikram Singh, resident of Varanasi, challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991. According to Vikram's plea, the said sections offend Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, and 29 and violate the principles of secularism and the rule of law, which are an integral part of the Preamble and the basic structure of the Constitution. "It is respectfully submitted that the Central Government, by making impugned provision (Places of Worship Act 1991) in the year of 1991 has created arbitrary irrational retrospective cut off date, declared that character of places of worship and pilgrimage shall be maintained as it was on 15 August 1947 and no suit or proceeding shall lie in the court in respect to the dispute against encroachment done by barbaric fundamentalist invaders and such proceeding shall stand abated," the PIL stated. Yesterday on Wednesday, another plea was filed by a religious leader Swami Jeetendranand Saraswati against the 1991 Act. That plea said that Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Act have taken away the right to approach the Court and thus the right to judicial remedy has been closed.New Delhi: One more plea challenging the Constitutional validity of certain sections of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991, saying that the Act violates the principles of secularism, was filed in the Supreme Court on Thursday. The plea filed by Rudra Vikram Singh, resident of Varanasi, challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991. According to Vikram's plea, the said sections offend Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, and 29 and violate the principles of secularism and the rule of law, which are an integral part of the Preamble and the basic structure of the Constitution. "It is respectfully submitted that the Central Government, by making impugned provision (Places of Worship Act 1991) in the year of 1991 has created arbitrary irrational retrospective cut off date, declared that character of places of worship and pilgrimage shall be maintained as it was on 15 August 1947 and no suit or proceeding shall lie in the court in respect to the dispute against encroachment done by barbaric fundamentalist invaders and such proceeding shall stand abated," the PIL stated. Yesterday on Wednesday, another plea was filed by a religious leader Swami Jeetendranand Saraswati against the 1991 Act. That plea said that Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Act have taken away the right to approach the Court and thus the right to judicial remedy has been closed.New Delhi: One more plea challenging the Constitutional validity of certain sections of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991, saying that the Act violates the principles of secularism, was filed in the Supreme Court on Thursday. The plea filed by Rudra Vikram Singh, resident of Varanasi, challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991. According to Vikram's plea, the said sections offend Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, and 29 and violate the principles of secularism and the rule of law, which are an integral part of the Preamble and the basic structure of the Constitution. "It is respectfully submitted that the Central Government, by making impugned provision (Places of Worship Act 1991) in the year of 1991 has created arbitrary irrational retrospective cut off date, declared that character of places of worship and pilgrimage shall be maintained as it was on 15 August 1947 and no suit or proceeding shall lie in the court in respect to the dispute against encroachment done by barbaric fundamentalist invaders and such proceeding shall stand abated," the PIL stated. Yesterday on Wednesday, another plea was filed by a religious leader Swami Jeetendranand Saraswati against the 1991 Act. That plea said that Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Act have taken away the right to approach the Court and thus the right to judicial remedy has been closed.New Delhi: One more plea challenging the Constitutional validity of certain sections of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991, saying that the Act violates the principles of secularism, was filed in the Supreme Court on Thursday. The plea filed by Rudra Vikram Singh, resident of Varanasi, challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991. According to Vikram's plea, the said sections offend Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, and 29 and violate the principles of secularism and the rule of law, which are an integral part of the Preamble and the basic structure of the Constitution. "It is respectfully submitted that the Central Government, by making impugned provision (Places of Worship Act 1991) in the year of 1991 has created arbitrary irrational retrospective cut off date, declared that character of places of worship and pilgrimage shall be maintained as it was on 15 August 1947 and no suit or proceeding shall lie in the court in respect to the dispute against encroachment done by barbaric fundamentalist invaders and such proceeding shall stand abated," the PIL stated. Yesterday on Wednesday, another plea was filed by a religious leader Swami Jeetendranand Saraswati against the 1991 Act. That plea said that Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Act have taken away the right to approach the Court and thus the right to judicial remedy has been closed.New Delhi: One more plea challenging the Constitutional validity of certain sections of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991, saying that the Act violates the principles of secularism, was filed in the Supreme Court on Thursday. The plea filed by Rudra Vikram Singh, resident of Varanasi, challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991. According to Vikram's plea, the said sections offend A