Madras High Court Paves Way For RSS Route March, Asks State Not To Deny Permission In Future
Upasana Sajeev
16 Oct 2026 4:57 PM IST
The Madras High Court, on Friday (October 16), paved the way for a route march by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to commemorate the founding day of the organisation.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan closed the plea after the Advocate General informed the court that the police would grant permission for the route march by Monday (October 19), considering the representation and other details provided by the organisers. The court made it clear that the route marches shall be held on October 25th and November 1st and asked the organisers to provide all necessary details.
The court also asked the Tamil Nadu police not to deny such permission in the future, considering the guidelines that have already been framed by the court. The court also asked the organisers to give applications in advance and directed the police not to sit on the applications and to grant approval as and when the applications are filed in the future.
"The hope that was expressed by the Supreme Court in 2024 and reiterated by this court is rekindled now. The Police should not reject approval for RSS march in the future, forcing them to come to court. The members of RSS know when Vijayadashami falls and should give an application in advance," the court said.
The court was hearing a plea filed by V. G. Jagadeesan, State Secretary of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), North Tamil Nadu. The petitioner had approached the court after the Tamil Nadu police denied permission to conduct route marches on October 18, October 25, November 1, or any other dates, wearing their uniform and led by a musical band, followed by a public meeting.
The petitioner had alleged that the organisation had been carrying out such route marches across the length and breadth of the country. However, since 2022, they were being denied permission to conduct route marches in the State of Tamil Nadu, forcing them to approach the court.
The court had previously questioned why RSS was being denied permission for a route march in Tamil Nadu, when it was permitted to hold marches even in terrorist infested places like Jammu and Kashmir. The court had asked the counsel for the party to have a talk with the State Public Prosecutor John Sathyan and come up with a solution to conduct the meeting peacefully.
When the matter was taken up again yesterday, the court was informed that the meeting was not fruitful.
"This court had specifically directed the police not to give reasons such as religious structure, traffic congestion, existence of organisations having different views than RSS as a ground to refuse permission. One thing must be said to the credit of the Tamil Nadu police. They have not come up with any novel reasons for rejection. They've come up with the same reason that this court has termed lame," the court said.
The court also noted that the police had referred to the Tamil Nadu Police (Reforms) Act, 2013, to deny permission for the route march. The court held that the law was previously considered by the High Court and Supreme Court, and it had been held that the state law could not be used to extinguish the organisation's fundamental right.
"I had recorded in my earlier order that the fundamental right to form an association under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution can be restricted only by way of a legislation by the State or the Parliament. Such a law, to pass scrutiny, must be in line with Article 19(3). The law pitted against the petitioner is the Tamil Nadu Police Act. A legislation considered by this court, by supreme court and this court again in the second round of litigation. It was held that the law by the state cannot be used to snuff out the right of the RSS to hold a route march," the court observed.
The court further noted that instead of considering the representations in line with the guidelines of the court, the State had denied permission citing the same guidelines. This, according to the court, was "a classic case of using a scalpel not for operation but to kill the patient on whom the operation is to be performed".
When the AG informed the court that the proposed procession on October 25 and November 1 could go on subject to modifications by the police depending on the local conditions, the court recorded the submission and disposed of the plea accordingly.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.N.L.Rajah Senior Counsel for Mr.V.Chandrasekaran
Counsel for Respondents: Mr.Vijay Narayan Advocate General assisted by Mr.Akash Government Advocate, Mr.John Sathyan State Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr.Arun Anbumani Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
