RSS Route March: Tamil Nadu Govt Files New Petition Against Madras HC Order; Supreme Court Adjourns Hearing To March 27

In the dispute related to the route marches proposed by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in Tamil Nadu, the State Government informed the Supreme Court on Friday that it has filed a new special leave petition against the original order passed by the Madras High Court single bench on September 22, 2022, which allowed the organisation to hold processions.

The State has come before the Supreme Court against the order passed by the division bench of the Madras High Court on February 10 which set aside the conditions imposed by the single bench for the RSS marches. The conditions were imposed by a single bench in November 2022 modifying the original order passed by it in September 2022, while hearing a contempt petition filed by RSS.

On the previous date of hearing, the Supreme Court had asked the State how the single judge could have modified the original order while exercising contempt power. The Court had also observed that the proper course for the State would have been to challenge the original order passed in September 2022.

Presumably to overcome the technical difficulties, the State has now filed the fresh SLP against the September 2022 order.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the State, informed the bench comprising Justices V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal that the new SLP has not been listed today and requested to adjourn the matter so that both petitions can be considered together.

Advocate Nachiketa Joshi, the Counsel appearing on behalf of RSS, opposed the request for adjournment by pointing out that the State had agreed on the last time to give proposals on alternate routes.

"They were to give us proposals today. Last time they undertook", Joshi said.

"I spoke to the State. They said first they will file the SLP then they will give. I will give the proposals", Rohatgi replied.

"This is so unfair to the Court. They are raking up issues by filing a separate SLP", RSS's lawyer countered.

"Why can't I file an SLP?", Rohatgi asked.

Justice Ramasubramanian then intervened to say, "He is not saying that you don't have the right to file an SLP. All that he says is, it would have been better...".

Rohatgi then said that there were some new disturbances in the State over fake videos on attacks against North Indian migrants. That issue was settled ten days ago, Justice Ramasburamanian said.

The bench agreed to defer the matter to March 27.

On the last occasion, the Tamil Nadu Government told the Apex 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. Mr. Rohtagi had requested the Bench to adjourn the hearing till March 17 and submitted that in the interim the State will try to "work out a solution". He also submitted that the State will communicate to RSS the alternate routes and suggested that the proposed march on March 5 be deferred. At the request of the Senior Counsel, the Bench had stood over the matter to March 17. 

Background

On November 4, 2022, the Single Judge of the High Court had imposed additional conditions by modifying the earlier order passed on September 22, 2022. This was done while considering a contempt petition filed on behalf of the respondent alleging that State disobeyed the first order.

The Division Bench of the High Court 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. Moreover, the challenge was also sustained 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 over likelihood of disturbances after the ban of PFI. 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]

Click Here To Read/Download Order