The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the Allahabad High Court's recent direction against holding 'Ram Lila' inside a school playground in Uttar Pradesh's Tundla.

A Bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh, however, clarified that children shall be allowed to play in the ground. 

"Since festivities have begun, para 11 of the order is stayed, the festivities shall continue [on the] condition that children shall continue to play or pursue sports activities," the Court said.

On September 22, the High Court had intervened in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging misuse of the school playground for organising 'Ram Lila' by unnamed persons who had formed a Ram Lila Committee.

It was also submitted that cement interlocking tiles were being fixed for the purpose of converting the place into a permanent place for holding such event, thus depriving the children of a playground. Further, the main gate of the school, itself, was converted into a 'Sita Ram Gate' and various swings have been put there, the Court was told.

The same was justified on the ground that Ram Lila was being performed for over 100 years at the location and that the educational activities at the school were not being affected since the festivities would be performed from 7 PM to 10 PM.

However, a Division Bench of the High Court found the claim that teaching activities are not getting affected, to be contrary to the facts.

"The attempt appears to be to convert the land of the school into a permanent place for holding activities of the nature, which are sought to be objected, which action cannot be permitted," the Court had observed, while staying the Ram Lila activities at the ground.

The order was challenged by Shree Nagar Ram Lila Mahotsav before the top court. During the hearing, the Court today questioned the litigant (respondent) who had approached the High Court.

"If this Ramleela is happening on this ground for last 100 years why did you approach court now? Why not in advance?" Justice Kant asked.

Counsel representing the respondent said that educational activities were getting affected. However, the Court said that he was neither a student nor a parent and not even owner of the school property.

"Where is the complaint by student or parents? Why not go in advance and seek alternate arrangements?" it said.

The Court then proceeded to stay the High Court direction, while urging it to hear all stakeholders before passing final directions in the PIL.

"Let petitioners also move court for the preponement in the date of hearing," it added.