Ram Mandir Prana Pratishta | 252 Out of 288 Applications For Ceremonies Allowed : Tamil Nadu Govt Tells Supreme Court

A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta was hearing a writ petition filed by a 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. On the last occasion, 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.

While issuing notice on the BJP member's petition, the bench 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. "We believe and trust that the authorities will act in accordance with the law and not on the basis of any oral instructions," the top court observed in its order.

During today's hearing, AAG Tiwari sought time to file an affidavit, but orally apprised the bench of the number of applications that were denied. He also urged 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. The law officer said, "Let the high court consider all these issues..."

"We will see, you file a short affidavit," Justice Khanna said. 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's 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, Naidu said, "May I pray for one small thing? Let it be kept pending. Let their counter come and then you take the call."

Adjourning the hearing for 15 days, the bench pronounced -

"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, including pendency of writ petitions before two benches of the Madras High Court. Re-list after 15 days."

At the end, when asked by the petitioner's lawyer if a rejoinder could be filed on his behalf, Justice Khanna remarked, "That's not required. Event is gone now. Don't push it further. The order that was passed had its role to play."

Case Details

Vinoj v. Union of India & Ors. | Diary No. 3390 of 2024