‘Don’t give Muslims a bad name’: HC criticises TN police for denying permission to RSS marches

The Madras High Court criticised Tamil Nadu Police for treating mosques and Eidgahs along proposed RSS march routes as reasons to refuse permission. Justice V Lakshminarayanan said such reasoning could give Muslims a bad name by suggesting that minority communities opposed the processions. The issue matters because public authorities must explain restrictions with concrete, lawful grounds rather than assumptions about a community.

The court was told that police had allowed marches at only 58 of 128 requested locations. During the hearing, the judge questioned whether Muslim residents had actually objected. He also challenged the use of the banned Popular Front of India’s past incidents to oppose the marches. Earlier court rulings had rejected similar grounds as “lame”.

The dispute remains unresolved. The marches were postponed to October 25 in northern Tamil Nadu and November 1 in southern districts. The High Court was due to continue hearing the matter on Friday, while earlier High Court and Supreme Court rulings had supported the RSS’s right to hold processions.

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, or RSS, is described in the article as a Hindutva organisation and the ideological parent of the Bharatiya Janata Party. The organisation holds annual Dussehra route marches as part of its celebrations. These processions therefore combine a public route event with an important occasion in the RSS calendar.

In Tamil Nadu, the RSS sought permission for marches at 128 locations. Police were initially willing to allow them at only 58 locations. The proposed routes became the focus of a legal dispute because police cited factors including mosques and Eidgahs along some routes. The High Court questioned whether those factors showed any actual objection from Muslim residents.

The marches were originally scheduled for Sunday but were postponed. The legal news reports cited in the article said they were rescheduled for October 25 in northern Tamil Nadu and November 1 in southern districts. The High Court continued examining whether the refusals were legally justified, against a background of earlier rulings supporting the processions.

The RSS applied to conduct Dussehra route marches at 128 locations across Tamil Nadu. Police were initially willing to permit processions at only 58 locations. The figures show the scale of the disagreement: permission was not immediately available at 70 of the places requested. That numerical gap became central to the legal challenge.

The organisation challenged the authorities’ refusal in the Madras High Court. During the hearing, the court examined reasons given for rejecting permission at some locations. These included the presence of mosques and Eidgahs on proposed routes, as well as references to incidents involving the banned Popular Front of India. Justice V Lakshminarayanan questioned whether Muslims had actually objected to the marches.

The processions were originally planned for Sunday but were postponed. They were moved to October 25 in northern Tamil Nadu and November 1 in southern districts. The High Court was scheduled to continue hearing the matter on Friday. The figures could therefore change if the court orders permission at additional locations.

Police cited the presence of mosques and Eidgahs along proposed routes when refusing permission at some locations. They also referred to incidents involving the banned Popular Front of India while opposing the RSS processions. These reasons appear to have been presented as concerns connected with safety, local tension, or possible disruption, but the article does not detail a specific incident at each location.

The High Court challenged the logic behind those grounds. Justice V Lakshminarayanan noted that an Eidgah is used for prayers during Ramadan and Bakrid, and questioned the relevance of saying Muslims would celebrate those occasions in October. He also asked whether members of the Muslim community had actually objected. Earlier rulings had called similar reasons “lame”.

The court’s criticism suggests that authorities should connect restrictions to evidence, not simply to a place of worship or a community’s presumed reaction. The hearing continued, and the marches were postponed to different dates for northern and southern Tamil Nadu. The final permissions remained under judicial consideration.

Political or religious processions can engage the rights to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly because participants express views and gather publicly. In India, these rights are constitutionally protected, but they operate alongside the state’s duty to maintain public order and protect safety. The balance matters because a procession should not be blocked merely because officials assume a community will object.

The Tamil Nadu dispute illustrates that balance. The RSS sought marches at 128 locations, while police initially approved 58. The High Court questioned whether mosques, Eidgahs, or past Popular Front of India incidents actually established a valid reason for refusal. In February 2023, the court said the state must uphold citizens’ right to free speech when granting permission for an RSS march.

Authorities can generally regulate time, route, crowd size, traffic arrangements, or security conditions when restrictions are lawful, necessary, and applied without discrimination. They may respond to credible threats of violence or serious disorder, but should use evidence and less restrictive conditions where possible. These general principles supplement the specific facts reported here.

The dispute over RSS route marches in Tamil Nadu has been in court since 2022. The central issue has been whether authorities could refuse or limit permission for the organisation’s processions. The Madras High Court and Supreme Court issued rulings allowing the marches, making the dispute part of a continuing legal conflict rather than a single administrative decision.

In February 2023, the High Court told the Tamil Nadu government to grant permission for an RSS march. It also remarked that the state must uphold citizens’ right to free speech. The Tamil Nadu government appealed, challenging the High Court order that allowed RSS rallies in the state. The Supreme Court then considered that challenge.

In April 2023, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling. The current case concerns refusals affecting the latest Dussehra processions, requested at 128 locations but initially allowed at 58. The marches were postponed to October 25 and November 1, and the High Court was scheduled to continue hearing the matter on Friday.

If permission is denied, organisers may lose the opportunity to hold the procession as planned and may challenge the decision in court. That is what happened here: the RSS petitioned against refusals affecting its Dussehra marches. If permission is granted, the procession can proceed, usually with conditions designed to protect participants, nearby residents, traffic, and public order. The article reports postponement, not the final outcome.

The court’s questioning shows why the reason matters. Police cited mosques, Eidgahs, and incidents involving the banned Popular Front of India. Justice V Lakshminarayanan asked whether Muslims had actually objected and criticised assumptions that could give Muslims a bad name. A place of worship alone does not establish that a procession will cause disorder.

As a general legal principle, authorities may use neutral, evidence-based grounds such as a credible threat of violence, serious public-order risks, unsafe crowd conditions, traffic disruption, or inadequate security arrangements. They can regulate route, timing, numbers, and conduct, or impose protective conditions. Restrictions should be necessary, proportionate, and non-discriminatory.