The Madras High Court has sharply criticised the State for denying permission to an RSS route march on grounds that mosques lie along the proposed route, calling out the reasoning as discriminatory and an affront to citizens’ constitutional rights. Justice V. Lakshminarayanan delivered the remarks on October 15, 2026, while hearing a petition filed by the State Secretary of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, North Tamil Nadu. The case centers on the State’s refusal to grant permission for a procession, citing objections linked to religious structures along the route.
—
## Police Cannot Brand Minorities as Problems
In its stern criticism, the bench found the State’s concerns—that mosques or an Eidgah on the route would upset communal harmony—deeply problematic. Justice Lakshminarayanan stated that such arguments unfairly convey that Muslim communities would object to the march simply because of their religious presence along the path. He pointed out that suggesting Muslims celebrate Eid in October—a month when neither Eid-ul-Fitr nor Eid-ul-Adha occur—is misleading and harmful.
The judge emphasised that the State should steer clear of attributing resistance to a specific religious group, and that basing refusal to grant permission on the mere presence of minority religious sites effectively casts Muslims in a negative light.
—
## Citizen Rights vs. Police Discretion
Justice Lakshminarayanan expressed concern over what he saw as the State overly deferring to police discretion at the expense of citizens’ constitutional freedoms. He declared that citizens’ rights “cannot be surrendered to the whims and fancies of the police.”
The court underscored that even when security or law and order are at stake, any restrictions must be reasonable and not arbitrary. In this case, previous judicial orders and guidelines had already ruled out grounds such as proximity to religious buildings, ideological differences, or traffic concerns—calling them “lame” — as valid reasons for denying permission for public demonstrations.
—
## Guideline Violations and Repeated Excuses
The court noted that during earlier similar cases, Justice G. Jayachandran had established explicit guidelines to prevent misuse of police powers in rejecting applications for public processions. The guidelines clearly state that the presence of mosques, churches, traffic congestion, or ideological opposition should not be treated as justifiable reasons for refusal.
Yet, despite those directives, the State again denied the RSS request using precisely those same arguments. Justice Lakshminarayanan lamented the recurrence of what he termed “unnecessary and frivolous litigations” that squander court time and defy established legal norms.
—
## What the RSS Must Do Next
The court instructed the RSS to comply with prior orders by submitting the following via affidavit:
– a comprehensive list of proposed routes for the march
– names and roles of persons in charge
– details of expected participants
Alongside this, the RSS must furnish an undertaking affirming strict adherence to the conditions prescribed by the court.
The court also directed the Advocate General to obtain instructions from the Director General of Police on whether permission can be granted once the affidavit and undertaking are in place. The next hearing is scheduled for the following day.
—
## Broader Implications: The Case at Hand
The petition, VG Jegadeesan vs. The State (WP Crl 2790 of 2026), challenges the State’s authority to deny public assembly based on religious demographics or infrastructure. It raises crucial issues under Articles relating to free assembly and equality that have broad relevance.
During proceedings, the court drew comparisons to other regions such as Jammu and Kashmir—where marches by the RSS were permitted—even in areas deemed sensitive or affected by militancy. The court asked why the same permissiveness could not be extended in Tamil Nadu.
—
## Critical Judgement: Why the Bench Struck Back
The court found flaws in the State’s arguments for several reasons:
– Previous rulings already invalidated similar objections as irrational.
– The repeated use of “lame” reasons indicated a failure to internalize or apply existing judicial guidelines.
– Allowing rejections based on religious site proximity risks stigmatizing minority communities.
Justice Lakshminarayanan expressed frustration that despite judicial guidance and legal precedent, the same excuse was offered again, consuming valuable court time unnecessarily.
—
## Looking Ahead: What’s At Stake
This case spotlights ongoing tension in balancing law-and-order concerns with constitutional freedoms such as the right to assemble and express dissent. If the court rules in favour of the RSS, it could set a precedent tightening the bounds on State discretion when public demonstrations are concerned—particularly when religious bias underlies denial of permission.
The RSS must show credible planning and agree to conditions laid forth by the court. In turn, the State’s police and administrative wings are expected to follow through on prior legal standards and ensure that constitutional protections are upheld.
—
This article is AI-generated content. Please verify the information independently before taking any action based on this article. before returning it.
