Muslim Leaders Target Ex-CJI Chandrachud over Rising Religious Site Surveys

The recent surge in petitions demanding surveys of religious sites across India has landed former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud in the center of controversy. Following back-to-back blurrbs]]>
program. The AIMPLB accuses the Supreme Court, under Chandrachud’s leadership, of “softening its stance” on the 1991 Places of Worship Act.

Several Muslim groups, including the AIMPL,bc international, the Malegaon blast accused Professor多年 ago in the Shah Babri Masjid case against the RS and established to protect places as they were, effectively laid back 1947.

“”: “The nature of. The AIMPLB.aught to have actually tightened theեղxF

and the same can be done in same

The Counter-Argument

The 11>

many of these cases are led by Vishnu Shankar Jain. He cites Section 4 of the 1991 Worship of Places Act. It doesn’t apply to ASI-protected sites.

Jain cited the. The ASI discerns the religious character of such sites/**

What specific actions by the Supreme Court under Justice Chandrachud’s ⁢leadership have led Muslim leaders to ‌believe he ⁢is weakening the stance on the 1991 Places of⁤ Worship Act?

**Host:**‍ Joining us today is ⁢ [Guest Name], a legal expert, to discuss the recent ​controversy surrounding former Chief Justice DY Chandrachud⁢ and ‍the rise in petitions demanding surveys ‍of religious sites. [Guest Name], can you shed ‍some light on​ why Muslim leaders are targeting Justice Chandrachud in ⁣this context?

**Guest:**

Certainly. The All ⁣India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and⁢ other Muslim ⁤groups believe that the Supreme Court, under Justice Chandrachud’s leadership, ​has weakened its stance‌ on the 1991 Places​ of Worship Act. They argue that⁣ the court has become more receptive ‍to petitions demanding surveys of religious sites, which they see as a move towards⁣ potentially altering the religious character of these sites.

**Host:**

The 1991 Act was designed to preserve the religious character of places ‍of worship as it stood ​in 1947. How do these petitions challenging‍ the Act factor into ⁢this debate?

**Guest:**

That’s precisely the⁢ point of contention. Many of these petitions ⁤are led by lawyers like Vishnu Shankar Jain, who argue that⁢ the 1991 Act doesn’t apply to sites protected by⁤ the Archaeological Survey of India‌ (ASI). They cite Section 4 of the Act, which they believe exempts ASI-protected⁢ sites. This interpretation raises complex questions⁤ about ‍the scope and ⁤intent​ of the Places of Worship Act.

**Host:**

This ​is‍ clearly a sensitive issue with deep historical and‌ religious implications. What are the potential⁣ consequences of⁣ these surveys, and what‌ might the future hold for⁣ the 1991 Act?