State Must Uphold Citizen's Freedom Of Speech: Madras High Court Sets Aside Single Judge Order Imposing Conditions On RSS' Route March

The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq noted that the State must uphold the citizens' right to freedom of speech and expression. The court thus directed the RSS to file fresh applications for carrying out the route march on three different dates and directed the Tamil Nadu police to permit the RSS to take out route marches on any of such dates in various districts across the State on public roads.

The RSS had challenged the order of the single judge on the ground that a single judge could not have modified its earlier order allowing procession, in a contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience. The single judge had directed the organization to conduct the procession in compounded premises such as the Ground or Stadium. The court also had directed the participants not to bring any stick, lathi, or weapon that may cause injury to anyone.

The RSS submitted that public procession is an acceptable manner of exercising one's freedom of speech and expression and that the State has a duty to permit the same.

It was further submitted that the order was passed in a contempt proceeding whereas the judge could not have looked into the rightness of an order but merely had to look into whether a contempt was made out.

The RSS had also argued that even in the judgment, the single judge had noted that after perusing the intelligence reports, he found no significant materials in them. Even so, he went on to impose certain conditions on the conduct of the proceeding, it said. The organization argued that Public Opinion and Press Reports cannot take the face of evidence.

The police authorities in response had submitted that the denial of the permission was a policy decision based on the intelligence reports. The same was decided to ensure the safety of members of the organization, the court was told.

Case Title: G Subramanian v. K Phanindra Reddy IAS (batch cases)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 48

Case No: LPA 6 of 2022