Madras High Court Dismisses Thirumavalavan's Plea To Review Order Granting Permission For RSS Route March

The Madras High Court on Tuesday rejected a review application filed by Thol. Thirumavalavan, leader of Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi, seeking a review of the September 22nd order passed by the court granting permission to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to conduct their route march.

The bench of Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan observed that the petitioner was not a party to the Writ Petitions and if he had any grievances over the order, he could very well file an appeal in the manner known to law.

The grounds raised by the petitioner are applicable only to challenge the order passed by this Court and not for review, since there is no apparent error on the face of records as such the petitioner failed to make any ground to review the order passed by this Court. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds no merits in the Review Application to review the order dated 22.09.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.24540 of 2022 etc., batch. Hence, the present petition to grant leave to file Review application is liable to be dismissed.

The petitioner apprehended that if given permission to conduct the route march, the organisation would disrupt law and order & public order. He also submitted that his party had invited general public to participate in a social harmony procession on the same day. Thus, if the respondent organisation was allowed to conduct their procession, there will be a public disruption. The petitioner also contended that the Registry had erroneously numbered the petitions as criminal when the relief sought was of civil nature. 

The court relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Ram Kishan Fauji Vs. State of Haryana and ors, where the court explained what constitutes criminal proceedings includes those in which in the larger interest of the State, orders to prevent apprehended breach of the peace, orders to bind down persons who are a danger to the maintenance of peace and order or orders aimed at preventing vagrancy. Therefore, the registry was right in numbering the petitions as criminal. 

The court also pointed out that just because the petitioner had also sought permission to conduct procession on the same day, it did not give him any right to seek review of the order of the court. The court noted that the present litigation was nothing but an abuse of process of law.

Thus, noting that the petitioner had no locus standi and that there were no valid grounds for review, the court dismissed the petition.