Tamil Nadu Agrees Before Supreme Court To Allow RSS Route Marches Across State On 19th Or 26th Nov Subject To Approval Of Route By Police
The State of Tamil Nadu on Monday (06.11.2023) agreed before the Supreme Court that it will allow the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to hold marches in various districts across the state either on November 19th or 26th. The Court accordingly asked RSS to submit the proposed routes to the State authorities within three days and the State to take a decision on the routes by November...
The State of Tamil Nadu on Monday (06.11.2023) agreed before the Supreme Court that it will allow the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to hold marches in various districts across the state either on November 19th or 26th. The Court accordingly asked RSS to submit the proposed routes to the State authorities within three days and the State to take a decision on the routes by November 15th.
The Apex Court was hearing Special Leave Petitions filed by the State against the Madras High Court orders directing the police authorities to grant permission to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to carry out route marches in in the State.
A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta said that the marches may be held on 19th or 26th of November, subject to permission by the State and on the terms and conditions previously prescribed by the Madras High Court. The Court also pointed out that the organization had undertaken before the High Court that they will follow the route permitted by the Police Authorities for the marches.
Sr. Adv. Kapil Sibal appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu told the Court that the route that the RSS had earlier proposed for 22nd and 29th October, had several mosques along the way. "There are celebrations by the community on 22nd and 29th (October). We don't want clashes to happen. Any other dates we are willing to give them" he said.
Sr. Adv. Mukul Rohatgi, also appearing for the state, suggested that permission be given only for one rally per district instead of allowing three rallies per district as sought by them, with liberty to amend the route proposed by them. "You can't go through Jama Masjid and all that and create that kind of a situation," he said.
At this juncture, Justice Kant pointed out that as per the High Court order, the organisation had already agreed to go along the route suggested by the police. However, Justice Kant said permitting only one rally per district would be 'too much indulgence'. "As long as law and order is taken care of, they are doing it peacefully as per the routes permitted by the police, with the kind of undertaking they have given.." he said.
"It can't be the case that someone wants to hold marches every day, every week, that may not be possible," Rohatgi said. However, Justice Kant responded "if they ask for everyday, then we will see, right now they are only asking for two days".
The Court recorded the submission of the AAG for Tamil Nadu Adv. Amit Anand Tiwari and Sibal and Rohatgi that the state will permit RSS to conduct the march either on 19th or 26th November.
Two recent orders of the Madras High Court have been challenged before the Apex Court. One passed by a single bench of Justice G Jayachandran on 16th October and another order passed on 18th October by a single bench of Justice G Ilangovan of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.
In the previous hearing, the Apex Court had asked the state why it approached the Apex Court directly, instead of filing an intra-court appeal before a division bench of the Madras High Court. Tamil Nadu Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohammed Jinnah had informed the Court that as per the Letters of Patent rules, there was no provision of intra court appeal in criminal matters. When public order is involved, it is a criminal matter, he argued. Several decisions of the High Court prohibits filing appeal in similar matters, he added.
Today, when questioned on the maintainability of the plea, Rohatgi argued that no appeal lies to the division bench from a single judge's order in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction under the Letters of Patent Rules of the Madras High Court.
On 1st November, the Madras High Court had criticised the Tamil Nadu government for its failure to comply with the court orders issued earlier in connection with granting permission to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to conduct a route march. The contempt petition was filed by the party after the State denied them permission to conduct a route march in spite of an earlier order directing the police authorities in the State to grant permission.
In today's hearing Sibal urged that the contempt proceedings be suspended in view of compliance. "Now there is an order of the Supreme Court, how can the High Court proceed with contempt?" Rohatgi argued. The Court however, asked the parties to produce the latest order of the Apex Court before the contempt court, and inform the court of the subsequent developments.
Background
Justice G Jayachandran of the Madras High Court while passing the order dated 16th October had 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.
In the order passed by the Madurai Bench, the High Court had recorded the submission of the Counsel appearing for the Petitioners that the RSS will maintain discipline throughout the events. 'They will show to the court that they are the most disciplined organization to the core. They will maintain the same throughout the events.” Sr Adv.N.Anandha Padmanabhan had undertaken to the High Court.
"Hope that this undertaking given by the petitioners through their counsel will be carried by their cadres in the mind and heart throughout the event. They must keep their promise and undertaking" the High Court had stated.
The High Court had warned that no RSS members must speak ill of any caste or religion during the march. The High Court had imposed several conditions on the march such as setting a limit of 500 participants on the march. The High Court had also said that the participants would not be allowed to bring bring any stick, lathi or any weapon to the march.
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.
Case Title: THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU vs. S.RAJA DESINGU, SLP(C) No. 24234-24265/2023