Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Prashant Bhushan contended that the authorities had unjustifiably limited prayers to specific occasions. He submitted that there was no law and order issue warranting such restrictions. “They have restricted prayers only to Ramzan and Bakri-Eid. There was no law and order problem,” Bhushan told the Court.
Responding to the submission, Justice Kumar remarked that if there was no law and order concern, there would have been “no necessity for a peace committee meeting,” indicating that administrative considerations appeared to have guided the decision.
Bhushan clarified that the grievance was limited and specific. “Our grievance is only this; it restricts the prayer only to Bakri-Eid. There is absolutely no reason to deny them prayer at Nelli Thope provided there is no nuisance. Why restrict it only to Ramzan?” he argued, stressing that peaceful prayers should be allowed as long as public order was not affected.
After hearing the submissions, the bench, however, expressed disinclination to intervene. Justice Kumar observed that the order under challenge struck a balance between competing considerations. “Very balanced order. We do not propose to interfere,” the Court said.
The bench ultimately dismissed the plea, making it clear that the refusal was without expressing any opinion on the merits of the broader issues raised.
Importantly, on December 1, 2025, a single judge of the high court had directed the management of the Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple to light the Deepam at the Deepathoon in addition to the traditional site near the Uchi Pillaiyar Mandapam. The judge observed that the temple authority could not deny devotees’ plea without reasonable basis, and that facilitating the ritual did not infringe the rights of any other community.