Madras High Court: RSS Marches Permitted Across TN in Jagadeesan v State

• The Madras High Court permitted the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to conduct route marches in 128 locations across Tamil Nadu.
• The marches are scheduled for October 25 and November 1, following an application filed by the RSS State Secretary on October 3.
• Justice V Lakshminarayanan criticized the Tamil Nadu Police for repeatedly denying permission using "lame" and unoriginal reasons.
• Police had cited concerns including places of worship, rationalist leader statues, traffic, loudspeakers, and potential law and order issues.
• The court directed police to coordinate with RSS organizers by October 19 to finalize march details.

He stated that the Tamil Nadu police had "not come up with any novel reasons for rejection," instead consistently presenting "the very reasons which this Court found as lame."

The Madras High Court recently intervened to permit the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to proceed with its planned route marches across Tamil Nadu. The court's decision, delivered on a Friday, specifically authorized the processions to take place on October 25 and November 1, covering 128 distinct locations throughout the state. This ruling came in the case of Jagadeesan v. State, following repeated denials of permission by the Tamil Nadu Police for the organization's public gatherings.

The legal challenge originated from an application filed by the RSS State Secretary on October 3. This application sought official authorization for a series of route marches and accompanying public meetings, which were intended to be part of the organization's Vijayadashami celebrations. The RSS had initially proposed three alternative dates for these events: October 18, October 25, and November 1. However, police authorities subsequently rejected these requests, citing a range of concerns. Their stated reasons included the proximity of places of worship belonging to other communities along the proposed routes, the presence of statues commemorating rationalist leaders, potential traffic congestion, the planned use of loudspeakers, and general apprehensions regarding possible law and order disturbances.

In his ruling, Justice V Lakshminarayanan of the Madras High Court delivered a sharp critique of the Tamil Nadu Police's handling of the RSS's application. The judge observed that the police force had consistently relied on the same set of justifications for denying permission, despite numerous previous directives from both the High Court and the Supreme Court on similar matters. This pattern, according to Justice Lakshminarayanan, indicated a lack of substantive engagement with the legal principles governing public assembly.

The court's disapproval was encapsulated in a pointed remark by Justice Lakshminarayanan, who noted the police's repetitive approach. He stated that the Tamil Nadu police had "not come up with any novel reasons for rejection," instead consistently presenting "the very reasons which this Court found as lame." This strong judicial language underscored the court's view that the police's grounds for refusal were insufficient and lacked merit in the face of established legal precedents. Consequently, the court issued a directive for the police to cease prolonging the matter and to collaborate directly with RSS organizers. This coordination was mandated to finalize the specific timings and exact locations for both the marches and the subsequent public meetings by the upcoming Monday, October 19.

This judgment from the Madras High Court carries significant weight for the exercise of freedom of assembly, particularly within Tamil Nadu. It serves as a clear reinforcement of the principle that law enforcement agencies cannot arbitrarily deny permission for public gatherings based on vague or unsubstantiated concerns about "law and order." The court's explicit criticism of the police's "lame" reasons establishes a precedent that challenges the routine use of generic security pretexts to curtail fundamental rights.

The ruling in Jagadeesan v. State highlights the judiciary's role in safeguarding constitutional liberties against administrative overreach. By compelling the police to facilitate the marches and to engage constructively with the organizers, the court has underscored the importance of balancing public order with the right to peaceful assembly. This decision could influence how future applications for public processions are handled in the state, potentially leading to greater scrutiny of police justifications for denial and ensuring that such decisions are grounded in specific, demonstrable threats rather than broad, generalized anxieties.

This ruling reinforces the limitations on police discretion to deny permission for public assemblies based on generic 'law and order' concerns, providing a precedent for challenging similar denials in Tamil Nadu and potentially other jurisdictions. Lawyers should note the court's criticism of 'lame' reasons for rejection when advising clients on permit applications for public gatherings.

Source: Original reporting based on court proceedings.