Madras High Court Questions Tamil Nadu Over Repeated Denial Of RSS March Permission

The Madras High Court expressed concern over the Tamil Nadu government's repeated refusal to grant permission for the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to organize route marches. Justice V Lakshminarayanan inquired, "If the RSS can march in a region like Jammu and Kashmir, why is the Tamil Nadu police denying them permission each year?"

The judge noted that the state government was preventing organizations like the RSS and Dravidar Kazhagam from organizing processions, compelling them to turn to the court for assistance. The court was hearing a petition filed by RSS member VG Jagadeesan, who sought authorization for marches on October 18, October 25, November 1, or another appropriate date.

The proposed marches would include uniformed participants, accompanied by a musical ensemble, followed by a public gathering. Senior Advocate NL Rajah represented the petitioner, highlighting that the RSS organization has consistently been denied permission for its annual march marking its foundation day, which occurs on Vijayadashami.

Rajah questioned the repeated denials based on law and order grounds, pointing out that smaller groups without financial means to pursue legal action face greater challenges in securing authorization. The state's counsel, Vijaya Narayan, argued that permission was denied because the planned march and public meeting would take place at a venue not designated for public gatherings.

The court instructed the petitioners' counsel to consult with State Public Prosecutor John Sathyan and explore arrangements for a peaceful event. It assigned five representatives of the petitioners to meet the prosecutor and work towards a resolution. The court postponed the matter to Thursday and directed the state to submit a report on permitting a peaceful procession.

In the past, the High Court had issued comprehensive guidelines for RSS route marches; however, the organization was denied permission in 2024, compelling it to return to court. Earlier, the court had observed that the police were responsible for safeguarding both the public and organizers, and could not consistently refuse permission by citing law and order concerns.