The Supreme Court recently has taken cognizance of a plea challenging the reported ban on the live telecast of the "Pran Pratishtha" ceremony of Lord Ram in Ayodhya across the state of Tamil Nadu, which is governed by the DMK. The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Dama Sheshadri Naidu, contends that the ban not only infringes on the right to broadcast but also imposes restrictions on religious practices, including Poojas, Archana, Annadanam (charitable food distribution), and bhajans during the said event.

The plea argues that such a purported ban by the State Government, executed through police officials, amounts to a violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The petitioner fears potential law and order issues and a failure of the constitutional machinery if immediate judicial intervention is not sought.

However, during the court proceedings, the authorities from the State of Tamil Nadu denied issuing any oral orders restricting the live telecast or imposing bans on religious activities. The counsel representing the state claimed not to have received a copy of the petition but stated, "…my instructions are that there are no restrictions that have been placed or will be placed." The state further asserted that the entire issue is politically motivated.

The bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta recorded the statements of the respondents and observed, "The allegations in the petition are that oral orders have been issued to ban live telecast, the performance of Pooja and Archana, Annadanam, bhajans on the occasion of Pran Pratishtha of Lord Ram at Ayodhya today... Reliance is placed on some documents which have been enclosed as Annexures in support of the said contention."

The court acknowledged the statements made by the respondents and took them on record. The justices expressed confidence that the authorities would act in accordance with the law and not solely based on oral instructions. The court emphasized that authorities should review any application in compliance with the law, maintain proper data on the receipt of requests, and consider relevant parameters set by the court while examining applications. The respondents were instructed to scrutinize the reasons for rejecting any prayers, taking into account the documents submitted as Annexures P2.

Case: Vinoj v. Union of India and Ors.