“State’s Rejection Order Contrary To Secular And Democratic Way Of Governance”: Madras High Court Allows RSS To Conduct Route March
While directing the police authorities in the State to grant permission to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to carry out route marches, the Madras High Court observed that the State’s decision to deny permission in the first instance was against the secular and constitutional principles in the State. Justice G Jayachandran noted that the state had denied permission to RSS by...
While directing the police authorities in the State to grant permission to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to carry out route marches, the Madras High Court observed that the State’s decision to deny permission in the first instance was against the secular and constitutional principles in the State.
Justice G Jayachandran noted that the state had denied permission to RSS by merely stating that there were other structures and places of worship in the intended route which was against the constitutional principle of Secularism.
“The tenure of the rejection order certainly not in tune with Secular or democratic way of governance. It is neither in obedience or compliance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dictum. By citing the existence of the structures, place of worship of other religion or office of some organizations, which do not share the same ideology of RSS, the request of RSS to conduct procession and public meeting is rejected. This order is contrary to the principle of Secularism which is the foundation of our Constitution of India,” the court observed.
The RSS had approached the court seeking directions to the State to grant permission for their route marches. During the pendency of the case, however, the State had categorically rejected the request for conducting a rally. However, considering the circumstances, the court deemed it fit to mould the prayer and look into the rejection order itself.
Last year, a single judge of the High Court had, in similar circumstances, permitted RSS to conduct a route march on certain conditions. Though a review application by the State was dismissed, when the RSS filed a contempt petition for non-compliance of the order, the court modified the earlier order and imposed certain restrictions. When an intra-court appeal was preferred, the division bench set aside the order imposing conditions. The order of the division bench was also upheld by the Supreme Court.
The court noted that in the present case, though the State had listed some reasons to reject permission for route march, the same were only to circumvent/defy the mandate of the Supreme court and exposed the inability of the State machinery.
“The chart provided by the learned Advocate General, which annexed to the judgment, are lame reasons to say the least. The State to circumvent or defy the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court order to deny permission to the Organization to conduct rally in a democratic manner had listed out reasons and it only exposes the inability of the State machinery,” the court noted.
The court also noted that the reasons stated in the rejection order were not specific inconveniences on particular days, but general reasons which would exist on all days of the year. The court found these reasons to be ingenuine and unreasonable.
The court also took note of a division bench judgment wherein the court had observed that domination of one religious group in a particular locality could not be a ground to prohibit other religious groups from celebrating religious festivals or taking processions through the roads.
At the same time, the court also directed the organisers to give an undertaking to the District Superintendent of Police that they would scrupulously follow the guidelines of the Supreme Court and will not deviate the guidelines and other restrictions laid down by the District Administration. The court also directed the authorities to ensure adequate bandobast to ensure a peaceful procession.
The court thus directed the Superintendent of Police to issue permission after having consultations with the organisers. The court added that the organisers could make minor changes to the route, it the District Administration found it difficult to provide bandobast in a particular route. However, the court made it clear that the starting point and the ending point should not be compromised in the guise of changing the route. The court also asked the permission to be issued at least three days prior to the date of the rally/meeting.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.G.Rajagopalan, (Senior Counsel), NL Rajah (Senior Counsel)
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. R.Shanmuga Sundaram, (Advocate General) Assisted by Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate (Crl. Side) and Ms.Shakeena, Mr. Hasan Mohammed Jinnah State Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr.Udhaya Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and Ms. J.R.Archana
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 321
Case Title: Raja Desingu v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Case No: WP No. 29039 of 2023 (batch)