Justice V. Lakshminarayanan Questions Police Reliance on Mosques Along Procession Routes and Defends Citizens’ Constitutional Rights
Madras High Court Questions Police Over RSS March
The Madras High Court strongly criticised the Tamil Nadu Police on Thursday, October 15, over the RSS March Permission Denial. The Court questioned the repeated rejection of procession requests because mosques and other religious places stood along proposed routes.
Justice V. Lakshminarayanan heard a petition from the State Secretary of RSS, North Tamil Nadu. The petitioner challenged the police order rejecting permission for a route march.
During the hearing, the judge expressed concern over the administration’s approach. He questioned why authorities portrayed minority communities as opposing peaceful processions by other organisations.
Court Objects to Police Citing Mosques and Eidgahs
The State cited the presence of mosques and Eidgahs along the proposed procession routes.
However, Justice Lakshminarayanan questioned the reasoning behind this objection.
The judge observed:
“Eidgah is for Ramzan and Bakrid. For gathering and praying. You’re saying that they (Muslims) will celebrate Ramzan in October? You’re giving a bad name for Muslims… It is a matter of agony that the police authorities are mentioning as if those belonging to the minority community are having issues with the procession being held by the petitioner’s organisation.”
The Court expressed concern that such arguments could create a misleading impression about minority communities.
Furthermore, the judge questioned why the police continued to rely on religious locations to justify rejecting procession requests.
Citizens’ Constitutional Rights Cannot Depend on Police Discretion
Justice Lakshminarayanan stressed the importance of constitutional freedoms under Article 19(1)(b).
The provision guarantees citizens the right to assemble peacefully without arms.
Therefore, the Court questioned the practice of allowing police discretion to determine the exercise of fundamental rights.
The judge remarked:
“The problem is you (State) are surrendering everything to the police. Citizens’ rights cannot be surrendered to the whims and fancies of the police… God forbid I surrender the rights of the citizens to the Director General of Police.”
The Court emphasised that executive authorities cannot arbitrarily restrict constitutional freedoms.
Moreover, the judge referred to earlier proceedings involving RSS route marches.
During those hearings, the Court had questioned the repeated denial of permission in Tamil Nadu.
The judge also noted that authorities permitted similar events in security-sensitive regions such as Jammu and Kashmir.
High Court Questions Repeated Rejection of Procession Requests
The Madras High Court expressed disappointment over the State’s continued reliance on previously criticised grounds.
Justice G. Jayachandran had earlier issued comprehensive guidelines concerning procession permissions.
Those guidelines aimed to prevent repetitive disputes and unnecessary litigation.
Nevertheless, the authorities continued to cite reasons that the Court had previously described as “lame.”
Presence of Religious Places Cannot Alone Justify Denial
The Court reiterated its concerns about several grounds for rejecting procession requests.
These included:
- The presence of mosques, churches, or other places of worship along proposed routes.
- Possible traffic congestion during processions.
- The existence of organisations with opposing ideologies.
The Court questioned the use of these grounds as sufficient reasons to deny permission for peaceful assemblies.
Instead, authorities must respect constitutional protections while addressing legitimate administrative concerns.
Court Expresses Disappointment Over Failed Discussions
The High Court also examined earlier efforts to resolve the dispute.
Previously, the Court had directed both parties to meet State Public Prosecutor John Sathyan.
The meeting aimed to find an amicable solution and avoid further litigation.
However, the discussions failed to resolve the disagreement.
Consequently, the matter returned to the High Court.
The judge expressed disappointment over the continued dispute and the resulting burden on judicial time.
High Court Directs RSS to Submit Undertaking Affidavit
To move the matter forward, the High Court issued fresh directions to the petitioner.
The Court instructed the RSS representative to submit an undertaking affidavit containing complete details of the proposed procession.
The affidavit must include:
- Complete maps of the proposed procession routes.
- Names and details of the organisers.
- Information about the participants.
- An undertaking to follow all court-mandated conditions.
The petitioner must also commit to strictly observing the conditions governing the procession.
These requirements aim to provide the authorities with the necessary information for considering the request.
Advocate General Asked to Obtain Fresh Instructions From DGP
The High Court directed the Advocate General to obtain fresh instructions from the Director General of Police.
The DGP must reconsider the question of permission after receiving the petitioner’s undertaking affidavit.
Accordingly, the Court expects the authorities to examine the request in light of the submitted details.
The High Court then adjourned the matter for further hearing.
Constitutional Rights Remain Central to Procession Dispute
The proceedings highlight the Court’s concerns about administrative discretion and peaceful assembly rights.
Justice Lakshminarayanan stressed that police authorities must not arbitrarily restrict citizens’ constitutional freedoms.
Additionally, the Court objected to arguments that could portray minority communities negatively without adequate justification.
The RSS March Permission Denial dispute will continue when the High Court resumes hearing the matter.
Meanwhile, the petitioner must submit the required affidavit, and the State must obtain fresh instructions from the DGP.
