The Supreme Court today said that permission to hold a religious procession cannot be refused on the ground that the procession passes through a place of worship of another religion or a place where people of another religion live.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Bharatiya Janata Party member Vinoy has issued an oral order banning the live telecast of the Ayodhya Ramlala temple's Puran Prathishtha, which hosts pujas and other rituals and Annadhana, the Supreme Court has said.・He was hearing a lawsuit filed by Mr. P. Selvam. food distribution).
Tamil Nadu Bharatiya Janata Party leader K. Annamalai today posted on He told her that he had received verbal instructions not to allow her to do so. Union Finance Minister and Bharatiya Janata Party leader Nirmala Sitharaman also posted a video showing several men dismantling equipment to install large LED screen televisions inside the temple. She said the state government sent plainclothes members to disrupt the proceedings. She also posted a letter written by the inspector of Aralvoimozhi police station stating that permission for telecasting of Ayodhya rituals at the temple was refused. Some of these documents were attached by the appellant to the Supreme Court.
The state government denied such oral orders.
Amit Anand Tiwari, spokesperson for the Tamil Nadu government, said the state had not imposed any restrictions and called the petition a „politically motivated plea“.
The case was heard by Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Dutta. bar & bench I am quoting Justice Dutta as follows: … How are reasons given for not allowing Hindus in some places because they are a minority? These reasons are terrible. ”
In their judgment, the judges stated: “We believe and trust that the authorities will act in accordance with the law and not on the basis of verbal instructions. This has been stated above on behalf of respondent No. 8.” 2-4 have not been published. When examining applications for permits such as processions, authorities shall proceed in accordance with the law and record the reasons for rejecting applications. The authorities keep data about the applications received and the reasons for granting or disallowing them. While examining such applications, the authorities will keep in mind the relevant parameters set out in the law and court decisions. ”
The judgment further added that „the reasons recorded therein are prima facie unjustified and cannot be accepted.“
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court heard a separate writ petition challenging the denial of permission to conduct today's bhajan and Annadanam by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Avadi station, holding that no permission was required for the event on private land. Stated.
In a message to
He added: „The Supreme Court has ordered that the Tennessee government cannot restrict an individual's fundamental rights based on oral orders.“ Devotees of Bhagwan Shri Ram can freely broadcast the consecration function live on his LED screens within private premises and advertise only to temples managed by HR&CE. There is no prohibition on performing bhajans by offering special poojas or anandanas. ”
After these orders by both the courts, there was a lot of activity in many temples in the state. For example, hundreds of devotees dined at the Vallabha Vinayakar temple in Chennai.
Nirmala Sitharaman herself attended the Sri Kamakshi Amman temple in Kancheepuram, where she delivered the following sermon: Kamba Ramayanam sing Pancharatna Keerthana song.