The Supreme Court on 22nd January expressed strong disapproval of the Tamil Nadu Police’s rejection of a local temple’s application for annadaan in connection with the Ram Mandir Pran Pratishtha event in Dindigul district. The court, led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna, termed the reasons provided by the police as “atrocious” during the hearing of a petition alleging oral orders from Chief Minister M K Stalin to restrict religious activities related to Lord Ram across the state, as reported by The Indian Express. The court raised concerns about potential discrimination against the Hindu minority and emphasised the need for legitimate reasons for such restrictions.

A two-judge bench, including Justice Dipankar Datta, questioned the alleged oral orders by Chief Minister M K Stalin to the Tamil Nadu Police restricting various religious activities related to Lord Ram. The petitioner, a state BJP functionary, Vinoj Selvam claimed the oral orders banned Poojas, Archanas, Annadhaan, Live Telecast of Pran Prathishtha on LED screens, Bhajans, and processions in connection with the Ram Mandir Pratishtha event in Ayodhya across all temples in Tamil Nadu. The court raised concerns about potential discriminatory impacts on the Hindu minority and criticised the reasons given by the police for rejecting the temple’s application.

The counsel representing the Tamil Nadu Government denied the allegations made by the petitioner, stating that no oral directions were issued to restrict religious activities related to the Ram Mandir Pratishtha event. He termed the plea as politically motivated. The court recorded the state’s submission, confirming that there is no ban on live telecast, Poojas, archanas, annadanam, and bhajans on the occasion. However, the court issued notice to the Tamil Nadu government and urged it to record reasons for accepting or rejecting permission applications and maintain data on the same.

“If the order on page 21 (of the petition) is to be made applicable across Tamil Nadu, wherever there are minorities, they will never be able to hold a prayer meeting… See the reason. Here the Hindus are in the minority, if they are given permission to hold this prior meeting that will cause problems in the society. Is this a reason?” asked Justice Dipankar Datta.

The Supreme Court emphasised the importance of authorities acting in accordance with the law and not based on oral instructions. In its order, the court directed authorities to record reasons for rejecting or accepting applications related to religious events and to maintain data on the same. The bench underscored the need for transparency and adherence to legal procedures when examining such applications, emphasising that decisions should align with established legal parameters.

Justice Sanjiv Khanna cautioned the Tamil Nadu counsel, stating that law and order could be a reason for regulation, but the reasons provided in the police’s rejection order alone could not be accepted. “We have made it very clear. We want to know the reason. If this is the reason going to be given, you will be in trouble,” Justice Khanna cautioned the Tamil Nadu counsel.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the bench about written orders from some police stations and emphasised the need for a clear message from the highest constitutional court against unacceptable practices.

The court expressed concern over the police’s response to the temple’s annadaan request, highlighting potential cultural sensitivities and legal complications related to public peace and morality. The police cited the predominantly Christian population in the A Vellodu village as a reason for denying permission, prompting the court to question the validity of such considerations. Justice Khanna emphasised that while law and order could be a valid reason, the given justifications were questionable.

The bench in its order said, “We believe and trust that authorities will act in accordance with law and not on the basis of any oral instructions… The authorities, while examining any application for permission et cetera shall proceed in accordance with law and record reasons if any, while rejecting the said application. Authorities will also maintain data with regard to the applications received, and the reasons given for allowing or allowing such applications. While examining such applications, the authorities will keep the relevant parameters as held by this court.” 

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged the Supreme Court to send a clear message against what he deemed unacceptable practices. He informed the bench about written orders from some police stations, reinforcing the need for a strong stance from the highest constitutional court. The court, in response, underscored the importance of adherence to the law, valid reasons for decisions, and the need for transparency in the process of granting or denying permissions for religious events.