The Supreme Court on Tuesday paved the way for the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to hold a route march in Tamil Nadu rejecting the state government’s appeal.
The Madras high court had on February 10 allowed the route marches despite the state refusing permission citing the threat of attack on the marches from the banned organisation Popular Front of India (PFI).
A bench of justices V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal while referring the previous history of attacks by PFI on similar rallies conducted by RSS, said, “The chart provided by the state government shows that the members of the respondent organisation were the victims in many of those cases and that they were not the perpetrators. Therefore, it is not possible for us to find fault with the order passed by the learned Judge either in the main writ petitions or in the review applications. Hence, all the special leave petitions are liable to be dismissed.”
Also Read: ‘Must uphold citizens’ rights’: HC gives nod for RSS march
The Court was dealing with a set of three appeals filed by the Tamil Nadu government against separate orders passed by the Madras high court from time to time dealing with the request by RSS to conduct route march, a kind of peaceful procession along designated routes in the state.
The first order in this regard was passed on September 22 when the high court directed the state government to grant permission to RSS for conducting the march on October 2.
The HC also imposed several conditions to avoid any untoward incident or inconvenience to the general public. One of the conditions required RSS members not to carry any lathis or weapons.
Later, a contempt petition was filed by an RSS member against the denial of permission by the Chennai police for holding a route march.
The state maintained that on review of the situation permission could be granted for holding a march or procession within an enclosed space or ground.
On November 4, the high court while deciding the contempt plea, modified its September 22 order and permitted holding of the march in a stadium or ground.
This order was challenged by the march organisers before the division bench of the HC.
On February 10, the HC set aside the November 4 order and restored the September 22 order.
The state also filed separate appeals against the November 4 and February 10 orders.
Before the top court, RSS march organisers claimed a fundamental right to assemble peacefully under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India and said that their march could not be put on hold due to possible violence by PFI when it is the state’s duty to ensure adequate security.
The state, on the other hand, claimed “reasonable restrictions” under Article 19(3) in the interest of the country’s sovereignty, integrity or public order.
The state cited instances where a similar route march carried out by RSS in Karnataka’s Haveri district in October where petrol bombs were hurled by PFI supporters at the march.
The top court did not go into the arguments raised by both sides as it set aside the November 4 order on the ground that the HC judge “travelled beyond the scope of a contempt petition” and went on to modify the earlier order of September 22.
The Court upheld the February 10 order setting aside this order. On this ground itself, the state’s appeal against the November 4 order was dismissed.
The Court approved the September 22 order for interpreting the relevant provisions of the law correctly and also imposing necessary conditions for the march to be held. Some of the conditions to be observed required the members of the procession to not offend the sentiments of any religious, linguistic, cultural and other groups in any manner.
An undertaking had to be given to compensate for any loss to public or private property caused enroute.
The HC order of February 10 had approved the September 22 directions and had asked the organisers to approach the state authorities with three different dates of their choice for the purpose of holding the route-march.
A further direction was issued to the state authorities to grant permission to the organisers on one of the chosen dates.
The HC required the procession to be peaceful and urged the participants to ensure strict discipline is followed without any provocation or incitement on their part.
The HC had directed the state to take adequate safety measures and make traffic arrangements to ensure that the procession goes on peacefully.
The HC order had said, “The State’s approach towards citizens’ right can never be adversarial in a welfare state and it must be considered for granting permission for peaceful rallies, protest, processions or meeting so as to maintain a healthy democracy where the Constitution reigns supreme and the fundamental rights of citizens are placed at a lofty pedestal.”
