Ram temple consecration: Police, authorities not bound to act on ‘oral orders’ to ban live telecast, programmes, says SC order

The Supreme Court issued notice to Tamil Nadu on a petition claiming that Chief Minister M.K. Stalin had issued an ‘oral order’ to the police to ban the live telecast of the ‘pran pratishta’ in the State and conduct of poojas, archanas and poor feeding to celebrate the event.

The petition in the Supreme Court said that ‘such arbitrary exercise of power by the State government [through police officers] per se violates fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution’. | Photo Credit: Shiv Kumar Pushpakar

The Supreme Court on Monday said police and State authorities were not bound to act on any “oral orders” to ban the live telecast of pran pratishta of Lord Ram at Ayodhya and conduct of poojas, archanas and other programmes linked to the event on January 22.

“Nobody is bound to act on oral orders. Whatever is permitted in law should be allowed. Nobody can be stopped on the basis of oral orders,” a Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta ordered.

The order was passed on the basis of a petition claiming that Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin had issued an “oral order” to the State police to ban the live telecast of the pran pratishta in the State and conduct of poojas, archanas and poor feeding to celebrate the event.

Shri Ram Lalla idol unveiled; PM Narendra Modi offers prayers at Ram Temple | Video Credit: Special Arrangement

“A political party hates religion. That is their business. I have no qualms about it. The party comes to power. Now, it wants the government to also hate religion. It implements the agenda,” senior advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu and advocate G. Balaji, appearing for petitioner Vinoj, submitted in court.

Tamil Nadu Additional Advocate General, senior advocate Amit Anand Tiwari, countered that there were no restrictions in place as alleged, and the petition was a ‘politically motivated one’.

Centre expresses ‘shock’

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the Centre, expressed ‘shock’ at the state of affairs in Tamil Nadu.

“A strong message must go from the highest judiciary of the country to the Tamil Nadu government that the Constitution of India still governs the nation and applies to the State of Tamil Nadu also. Nobody can be prevented from performing religious rituals,” Mr. Mehta submitted vehemently.

To the State’s argument that the petition was ‘politically motivated’, Mr. Mehta countered that a “citizen seeking protection of the Supreme Court for his fundamental right of freedom to practice religion can never be termed political”.

The court issued notice to Tamil Nadu and listed the case on Monday. It directed the State to consider applications to conduct events in commemoration of the pran pratishta in accordance with law. The court ordered the State to record data on the number and details of applications it allowed and rejected. The court directed the State to give reasons for its decisions on the applications.

The petition had sought the quashing of the “oral order”of January 20.

“The order was issued to the police department not to permit any kind of poojas, archanas, poor feeding, live telecast of pran pratishta, bhajans and processions in the name of Lord Ram at Ayodhya in all temples in Tamil Nadu irrespective of whether it is a private temple or a temple controlled by the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments department,” the petition noted.

It said that “such arbitrary exercise of power by the State government (through police officers) per se violates fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution”.

The petition had called for immediate judicial intervention by the court, pointing out that there would otherwise be law and order problems and failure of constitutional machinery.

“It is very pertinent to point out that the Central government has ordered for closure of all Central government offices till 2.30 p.m. on the auspicious occasion of ‘pran pratishta’ at Ayodhya. The government of Tamil Nadu was totally unjustified in imposing a ban on live telecast and performance of poojas, poor feeding, especially while other State governments have declared holiday,” the petition had complained.