The Supreme Court in the case Vinoj v. Union of India and Ors. observed wherein it has been assured by the Tamil Nadu government last week that there was no ban on live screening of the Ram Mandir pran pratistha or other religious ceremonies to mark the occasion.
The Tamil Nadu government informed the court that out of 288 applications for various ceremonies and processions, 252 were granted. The Tamil Nadu Additional Advocate General Amit Anand Tiwari said that only in 36 areas, such permission was not granted by the state government in view of potential law and order issues.
The bench comprising of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta in the case was hearing the writ petition filed by the Tamil Nadu Bharatiya Janata Party, BJP leader alleging that the state government has prohibited live screenings and special poojas in connection with the Ram Mandir consecration ceremony in Uttar Pradesh’s Ayodhya on January 22.
Therefore, on the last occasions, the bench had not only recorded the state government’s statement refuting this claim, but had also categorically stated that permission for live screenings and special poojas could not be denied solely based on the presence of other religious communities in any given area.
The court in the case observed and has issued the notice on the BJP member’s petition.
The bench in the case also instructed the state to maintain a record of received applications and mandated that speaking orders, elucidating reasons for approval or denial, must be provided in all cases.
The Supreme Court in its order stated that this court believe and trust that the authorities will act in accordance with the law and not on the basis of any oral instructions.
The counsel, AAG Tiwari sought time to file an affidavit, but orally apprised the bench of the number of applications that were denied.
It has also been argued by the counsel, AAG that the court to drop the proceedings, pointing to contemporaneous litigation pending in both Madurai and Madras benches of the high court over the same issue. Therefore, the law officer stated that, ‘Let the high court consider all these issues…’
The bench headed by Justice Khanna stated that this court will see, you file affidavit. While turning next to the petitioner, who was represented by Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, the judge said, “You have filed an application for amendment. That we will not entertain. If there is anything further which is to be done, let the affidavit come…We may have to…Because at that time when you came before us, Mr Naidu, there was some urgency…Now that urgency is not there, so you normally go to other forums.
In response to it, Naidu stated that May I pray for one small thing? Let it be kept pending. Let their counter come and then you take the call.
The bench while pronouncing the hearing for 15 days stated that at the request of the counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu, 15 days’ time is granted to file a short affidavit pointing out certain facts, which includes the pendency of writ petitions before two benches of the Madras High Court.
Re-list after 15 days. At the end, when it has been asked by the by the petitioner’s lawyer if a rejoinder could be filed on his behalf, bench headed by Justice Khanna remarked that, it not required. Event is gone now. Don’t push it further. The order that was passed had its role to play.
