'Not Fully Opposed To RSS March, Will Suggest Alternate Routes' : TN Govt Tells Supreme Court; Hearing Adjourned To Mar 17

The Tamil Nadu Government on Friday told the Supreme Court that it is not totally opposed to the route marches proposed to be carried out by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in the State but wanted it to be restricted with conditions in certain areas.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by the State challenging the order passed by a division bench of the Madras High Court on February 10 which set aside the conditions imposed by the single bench for the RSS route marches.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the State, requested a bench comprising Justices V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal to adjourn the hearing till March 17 and said that in the meantime, the State will try to "work out a solution". The senior counsel said that the State will communicate to the other side (RSS) the alternate routes and suggested that the proposed march on March 5 be deferred. "It is not that March 5 is a sacrosanct day", Rohatgi submitted.

 Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for the RSS, apprised the bench that the organisation is not planning to carry out the proposed march on March 5.

"5th we are not going to hold it anyway....if he wants time no difficulty. We are not going to do anything till at least till the 10th or 12th of March, even a week later if my friend wants", Jethmalani submitted. Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy also appeared for the organization.

During the hearing, the bench noted that on November 4, 2022, the single judge had imposed additional conditions by modifying the earlier order passed on September 29, 2022. This was done while considering a contempt petition filed on behalf of the respondent alleging that State disobeyed the first order. Could the single bench have modified the original order while exercising contempt power, asked the bench.

Rohatgi replied that the State had filed a review petition against the original order and it was taken along with the contempt petition filed by the respondent . He agreed that a proper course would have been to challenge the original order but added that a matter concerning public order, the Court should not look at technicalities. 

"In a matter relating to public tranquility the Court can. And only one condition has been changed. That it has to be in a compound. Can Court shut its eyes to fact that PFI has been banned? There have been bomb blasts...If it is brought to the attention of the contempt court, that if the order is carried out, it will create problems, the court while exercising contempt power can modify. It is well settled”, he submitted. He added that the technical issue can be resolved by the State filing an SLP in the Supreme Court against the first order.

Rohatgi said that the State had taken a call that in certain areas "affected by PFI, bomb blasts etc", the march can be allowed only with conditions.

"We are not totally opposed to the request of the other side (RSS) to have route march. We said it cannot be done in an absolute fashion in every street."

He added that as per intelligence reports it would only be fit to impose some conditions - 

"We had some intelligence reports. We have border areas with disturbances. So we said don't do it there. For eg, in Coimbatore. There were bomb blasts. PFI has been banned. So we said don't do in disturbed areas in open. Do in enclosed compounds etc."

Mr. Rohatgi argued that the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the march to be conducted in the manner RSS wishes and the State Government should take care of the law and order situation. 

Even while agreeing to defer the march proposed on March 5, Jethmalani raised strong objections to the State's stand. He pointed out that the State had allowed protest marches by other organisations, such as Dalit panthers and the ruling DMK party, but RSS was singled out. 

Jethmalani apprised the Bench that in the areas where they were allowed RSS went ahead with the march and there was no law and order problem. He also questioned the logic of the State restricting marches citing threat from the PFI.

"And the ground they say is PFI was banned by Central Govt and it is a threat to me! They are not able to control a terrorist organisation and that is why they want to ban us?Can this be a ground? This is abdication of their responsibilities".

Background 

The Division Bench had passed the order in a petition filed by RSS assailing the order of the Single Judge modifying its earlier order allowing procession. The RSS impugned the order on the ground that the Single Judge could not have carried out the modifications in a contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience. The restrictions imposed by the Single Judge includes directions to organise the processions in compound premises such as grounds and stadium; directions to not carry sticks, lathis or other weapons that might cause injury. The RSS argued that public processions are an acceptable manner of exercising one’s freedom of speech and expression and the State is duty bound to permit the same. The challenge was also raised on the ground that the Single Judge noted that there was no significant material in the Intelligence reports. The RSS vehemently opposed reliance on public opinion and press reports arguing that the same cannot take the face of evidence.

The State police had averred that the denial of permission was a policy decision based on intelligence reports. It had informed the Court that the decision was to ensure the safety of members of the organisation.

[Case Title: Phanindra Reddy, IAS And Ors. v. G. Subramanian SLP(C) No. 4163/2023]