The Supreme Court of India issued a stern notice to the Tamil Nadu government on Monday, questioning its alleged ban on the live telecast of the Ram Mandir inauguration ceremony in Ayodhya. The apex court, in a strong message, emphasized India's status as a "homogenous society" and cautioned against restrictions based on religious grounds.
The controversy stemmed from a petition filed by a Chennai resident, Vinoj, who claimed that the Tamil Nadu government, led by the DMK party, had orally instructed temples in the state to refrain from broadcasting the live telecast of the ceremony. This move sparked outrage among Hindu groups and the BJP, who accused the DMK of religious intolerance.
Court's Observations and Concerns
The Supreme Court, while issuing the notice, made several critical observations:
Permission cannot be denied solely on the basis of religious demographics: The court emphasized that the presence of other communities in a locality cannot be a justification for denying permission for religious events. "This is a homogenous society," the bench remarked, highlighting the secular fabric of India.
Oral instructions raise concerns: The court expressed reservations about the alleged use of oral instructions instead of written orders. It emphasized the need for transparency and adherence to due process in such matters.
Potential violation of fundamental rights: The court hinted at the possibility of the alleged ban infringing upon the fundamental rights of freedom of religion and expression.
Reactions and Implications
The Supreme Court's intervention has drawn mixed reactions. Hindu groups and the BJP have welcomed the move, viewing it as a vindication of their religious rights. The DMK, however, has maintained that no official ban was imposed and that the issue is being politicized.
The case has wider implications beyond the immediate controversy. It raises important questions about religious freedom, interfaith harmony, and the role of the state in regulating religious practices. The Supreme Court's eventual verdict is likely to set a precedent for future cases involving similar issues.
