Madras HC allows RSS route marches on Oct 25, Nov 1; slams TN police over repeated rejections

The Madras High Court permitted the RSS to conduct its annual route marches across Tamil Nadu on October 25 and November 1. The marches are part of the organisation’s Vijayadashami celebrations. The order matters because police had repeatedly rejected the applications, using reasons the court had already disapproved.

Justice V Lakshminarayanan directed the police to coordinate with RSS organisers. They must finalise the march timings, routes and locations, along with venues for later public meetings, by Monday. The RSS had already supplied details about routes, organisers, participant numbers and meeting venues.

The court recorded the RSS undertaking to follow conditions imposed in earlier proceedings. It also said police should help applicants meet procedural requirements rather than search for grounds to reject them. The court hoped such route-march disputes would not repeatedly return to court.

RSS stands for Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. It is the organisation that sought permission for annual route marches connected with its Vijayadashami celebrations. The article identifies its North Tamil Nadu secretary as VG Jagadeesan and describes the organisation’s applications, proposed routes and public meetings.

A route march is an organised procession along specified roads. Participants move together on a planned route, with police and organisers dealing with timings, locations, traffic and public-order arrangements. In this case, the RSS also proposed public meetings after the marches. The court required route and venue details to be included in its order.

The distinction matters because a procession uses shared public space. The High Court said public roads are secular spaces open to everyone, regardless of religion, caste or creed. It recognised the RSS’s right to conduct marches, while keeping them subject to lawful restrictions and earlier judicial conditions.

The RSS initially sought permission for three possible march dates. They were October 18, October 25 and November 1. These were presented as alternative dates for processions and public meetings connected with the organisation’s Vijayadashami celebrations.

The police rejected the applications for all the proposed arrangements, citing concerns about routes, religious places, statues, traffic, loudspeakers and law and order. During the hearing, Advocate General Vijay Narayan told the court that the state agreed to permit marches on October 25 and November 1, subject to local police modifications based on prevailing conditions.

The court adopted those two dates in its order. It directed police and organisers to coordinate the final timings and locations by Monday. Thus, the outcome was narrower than the original proposal: three requested alternatives became two permitted dates, with operational details still to be settled.

Tamil Nadu police rejected the RSS applications by pointing to several risks along the proposed routes. These included places of worship belonging to other communities, statues of rationalist leaders, traffic congestion, loudspeakers and possible law-and-order problems. The applications covered both route marches and subsequent public meetings.

The police’s stated mechanism was precautionary: they treated route features and possible disturbances as reasons not to grant permission. During the hearing, however, the state agreed to allow marches on October 25 and November 1, with modifications suggested by local police authorities according to prevailing conditions.

The High Court criticised the repeated rejections. It said the reasons had already been considered and disapproved in earlier proceedings. Justice V Lakshminarayanan said police had not produced new reasons, but had consistently repeated what the court called “lame” grounds. The court directed police to facilitate compliance instead of seeking rejection.

The High Court said the police’s reasons were not valid because earlier proceedings had already examined and disapproved them. The court referred to decisions since 2022 that recognised the RSS’s right to conduct route marches, while allowing lawful restrictions. Repeating rejected grounds could not justify fresh refusals.

The court also cited a 2023 order stating that public roads are secular spaces. They remain accessible to everyone, regardless of religion, caste or creed. That principle meant the presence of places of worship or statues along a route did not automatically make a procession impermissible. Other concerns still had to be handled lawfully.

Justice V Lakshminarayanan sharply criticised the police approach. He said they had not offered any novel reasons and had repeated grounds the court found “lame.” The court compared the approach to using a scalpel not to operate, but to kill the patient, stressing that restrictions should regulate events rather than defeat them.

The order changes the immediate task for police. Instead of relying on previously rejected reasons, authorities must coordinate with RSS organisers and settle timings, locations and meeting venues. Local police may still suggest modifications based on prevailing conditions. The court’s direction is to manage practical risks, not use them as automatic grounds for refusal.

The RSS also has responsibilities. It must comply with conditions imposed in earlier proceedings, provide complete route and venue details, and submit applications sufficiently in advance. The organisation undertook to follow those conditions, which remain part of the court’s framework for the marches.

For the public, the marches will proceed on October 25 and November 1 with arrangements for traffic and public order still to be finalised. The court’s broader aim is to reduce repeated litigation. It said police should help applicants satisfy procedures and hoped these disputes would no longer occupy court time.

Indian law balances public processions with public safety by recognising the right to assemble and express views, while allowing lawful restrictions. Authorities may consider traffic, public order, safety and the rights of other people. Restrictions should be connected to genuine conditions and applied fairly, rather than imposed simply because a route is controversial.

The case illustrates that balance. The High Court recognised the RSS’s right to conduct route marches, but kept that right subject to lawful restrictions and earlier judicial conditions. Police could propose modifications based on prevailing conditions. They could not repeatedly rely on grounds already rejected, such as the mere presence of places of worship or statues.

The court also stressed that public roads are secular spaces accessible to everyone. In practice, organisers must provide details and follow conditions, while police must coordinate arrangements. The order therefore supports regulation of processions for safety without allowing procedural concerns to defeat a recognised right.