Madras High Court: Questions State on RSS March Permission Denials

• The Madras High Court questioned the Tamil Nadu government's repeated denial of permission for RSS route marches.
• Justice V Lakshminarayanan pressed the state for specific reasons and evidence of fear or violence.
• The Advocate General cited police deployment needs and public inconvenience during the festive season as reasons for refusal.
• The court highlighted previous judicial approvals for RSS processions and demanded proof of violence for current denials.
• The case, Jagadeesan Vs State, challenges police orders refusing permission for October marches.

The court's persistent questioning underscores a judicial expectation for concrete evidence rather than generalized fears or administrative inconvenience when restricting fundamental rights like public assembly.

The Madras High Court recently initiated a pointed inquiry into the Tamil Nadu government's repeated denials of permission for route marches planned by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). During a hearing concerning a petition challenging police orders that refused authorization for RSS marches scheduled for October, Justice V Lakshminarayanan directly questioned the state's rationale, asking what specific fears prompted such consistent prohibitions.

Advocate General Vijay Narayan, representing the Tamil Nadu government, presented several justifications for the refusal. He explained that allowing the processions would necessitate a significant deployment of police personnel. This would be particularly challenging during the festive season, a period when law enforcement agencies already bear numerous other responsibilities. Furthermore, the Advocate General suggested that the marches could cause considerable inconvenience to the general public engaged in shopping and other daily activities.

Despite the state's arguments, the court expressed skepticism, highlighting a pattern of judicial intervention in similar past instances. Justice Lakshminarayanan pointed out that the judiciary has consistently granted permission for RSS processions in previous years, questioning what exceptional circumstances existed for the year 2026 that warranted a different outcome. The judge specifically asked if any violence had occurred during prior RSS marches, implying a lack of concrete justification for the current denials.

When the Advocate General referenced general criminal cases, the court pressed for more specific details. Justice Lakshminarayanan demanded evidence of violence directly attributable to RSS processions, stating, "Where, sir? Where criminal cases on account of violence, you please tell me." This line of questioning underscored the court's demand for specific, evidence-based reasons rather than broad assertions to justify restrictions on public assembly.

The court's persistent questioning underscores a judicial expectation for concrete evidence rather than generalized fears or administrative inconvenience when restricting fundamental rights like public assembly. The case, Jagadeesan Vs State, highlights the judiciary's role in scrutinizing state actions that impinge upon citizens' rights to gather peacefully. By demanding specific instances of violence or public disorder, the Madras High Court reinforced the principle that the burden of proof lies with the state to demonstrate a clear and present danger before denying permission for lawful assemblies.

This judicial stance is crucial for upholding the constitutional right to freedom of assembly, ensuring that state authorities do not arbitrarily curtail peaceful demonstrations. The court's inquiry into the Tamil Nadu government's 'general approach towards citizens' suggests a broader concern about potential overreach in restricting public gatherings without compelling, evidence-backed reasons, thereby setting an important precedent for future requests for public assembly permissions.

Lawyers advising organizations seeking permission for public assemblies in Tamil Nadu should note the Madras High Court's strong skepticism towards generic state arguments for denying permits, particularly when no specific evidence of violence or public order disturbance is presented. This ruling reinforces the judiciary's role in upholding fundamental rights and sets a precedent for challenging state overreach in restricting peaceful gatherings.

Source: Original reporting via legal news source