Sri Rama very close to the heart of Hindus campaign for Ayodhya temple may be carried out with checks2 min read

By- Devanshi Srivastava


The Madras High Court was dealing with a plea by the Shri Ram Janma Bhoomi Theertha Trust, which was later aggrieved by the refusal of the authority to allow a procession to raise awareness on the temple.


Observed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court that Sri Rama is very close to the heart of Hindus, recently while the bench quashed the high-handed decision of the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) to directly decline permission for the conduct of an awareness campaign on the construction of the Ayodhya temple ( N Selva Kumar v. The Commissioner of Police).

The District Convenor has sought the permission of the Sri Rama Jamna Boomi Theertha Kshethra Trust to allow to conduct an awareness campaign about the Ram temple, through the medium of his van in Madurai was denied citing COVID-19.

The Madurai bench comprising Justice R Hemalatha, however, simply pointed out that the permission could have been given to conduct the awareness program, with some COVID-19 safety restrictions.

Sri Rama Jenma Boomi Theertha Kshethra had been formed in the first place for creating awareness among the general public and also for the construction of Sri Rama Temple in Ayodhya as said in the line with Supreme Court orders, the Trust’s Convenor submitted.

The petitioner’s  13th February representation was rejected by the Additional Commissioner of Police (ACP) , while the government had granted permission to conduct various social and political events, by citing the very present COVID-19 situation and also a law and order problems. The vehicle of the petitioner , specifically the van , was also restrained by the Police.

The Additional Commissioner of Police’s decision was defended by the Additional Public Prosecutor by submitting it before the Court that he does not have jurisdiction over all the wards of Madurai and that he is not empowered to grant permission in the matter concerned. The court responded, however, that nowhere, it is stated that the second respondent does not have powers to pass orders.

READ ALSO: A Colombia Peace Court launches investigation into 6,400 civilian killings by the military