The notices that have been issued by Madras High Court to Tamil Nadu Home Secretary, P Amudha, and the Director General of Police (DGP), Shankar Jiwal are returnable within four weeks. The Court has also directed these officials to appear in person during the upcoming hearing to explain their position for not allowing the RSS route march.
The RSS had planned annual route marches in Tamil Nadu to commemorate the 99th foundation year of the organisation. This event also aimed to celebrate the 200th birth anniversary of Saint Ramalinga Swamigal, popularly known as Vadalur Vallalar, and to honour the nationalistic ideas of Swami Vivekananda and BR. Ambedkar.
On October 16, Justice G. Jayachandran of the Madras High Court granted permission for these route marches after hearing a batch of 33 petitions filed by local and State-level RSS members. The judge had ordered the police to grant permission for the rallies on October 22 and 29, allowing them to proceed with certain conditions. This decision came after he rejected all the reasons and contentions put forward by the Tamil Nadu government.
Subsequently, the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court also permitted “padasanchalan” (route marches) in 11 southern districts under the conditions set by the parent court. However, route marches were disallowed in Madurai, Sivaganga, and Ramanathapuram in view of Thevar Jayanthi. The police had cited a manpower shortage as the reason for not providing security to the rally in these areas, but they allowed the option for the organisers to apply for permission after October 30.
In response to these decisions, the DMK government in Tamil Nadu moved to the Supreme Court with appeals regarding the two denied locations. This move was prompted by the denial of permission by the state authorities despite clear court orders to the contrary.
Contempt Petitions and Court’s Observations
In light of these developments, RSS leaders took the unprecedented step of filing contempt petitions against the DGP, Home Secretary, and respective district SPs and Inspectors of Police. When the court reconvened on October 30, Justice Jayachandran declined to allow an immediate hearing on the matter.
Justice Jayachandran, in his order issued on October 16, made extensive references to earlier cases and orders from the Supreme and High Courts. He pointed out that the District Administration had cited the presence of mosques and churches along the procession route as reasons for denial. According to Section 180-A of the District Municipalities Act 1920, roads or streets should be accessible to people of all religions, castes, or creeds.
The mere dominance of one religious group in a particular area should not be a ground for prohibiting the celebration of religious festivals or processions by other religious groups. The judge emphasised that such a prohibition could lead to a situation where one religious group would restrict the use of roads for other religious groups, even for daily transportation, movement, or normal access. This would, in effect, hinder not only religious processions but also marriage and funeral processions, which would be detrimental to society.
The court’s order declared that the state’s rejection of permission did not align with the principles of secular and democratic governance, highlighting the importance of upholding the rights of all religious and social groups to use public spaces for their cultural and religious activities.
As this legal battle continues to unfold, the Madras High Court’s summoning of top state officials, including the Home Secretary and DGP, adds another layer of complexity to the already contentious issue. The case raises questions about the balance between religious and cultural rights, public order, and the role of the state in facilitating or restricting such activities.
The upcoming hearing, where these officials are expected to explain their actions, will likely shed further light on the legal and constitutional dimensions of this case. The outcome of this legal battle may have far-reaching implications for the freedom of religious and cultural expression in public spaces, not only in Tamil Nadu but also throughout India. The controversy serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between religious freedoms and the responsibility of the state to maintain public order.
In a development that deepens the legal tussle surrounding RSS route marches in Tamil Nadu, a single bench of the Madras High Court, presided over by Justice G Jayachandran, was informed during the hearing on November 1 that despite the court’s earlier order directing the police to grant permission for the route marches, the authorities had not complied.
Senior counsel G Rajagopal, representing the RSS office-bearers, brought to the court’s attention the flagrant non-compliance with its previous order, underscoring the ongoing dispute regarding the organization’s right to conduct route marches in the state.
The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), R. Muniyapparaj, informed the court that, in response to the high court’s order, appeals had been filed. These appeals are expected to be listed before the Supreme Court on November 3rd, suggesting that the matter is set to move to the highest echelons of the judiciary.
Justice Jayachandran, in a resolute stance, refused to grant additional time to the APP to seek instructions from state officials on the issue and took a stern step by issuing statutory notices. The judge expressed his dissatisfaction with the government’s actions, stating that their failure to adhere to court directions reflects an inefficiency in governance and a disregard for the judiciary. This strong rebuke underscores the gravity of the contempt proceedings.
Contempt Notices Issued and Adjournment
The court, in light of the government’s non-compliance, issued statutory notices to the official respondents. The judge adjourned the hearing for four weeks, setting the stage for a potentially critical legal battle ahead.
It is important to note that the Madras High Court had previously allowed a batch of petitions filed by local and State-level RSS members, granting them permission for the route march and public meetings. The court had also issued directives to both the state authorities and participants to ensure that these events were conducted peacefully.
As the legal proceedings unfold, the issue surrounding RSS route marches in Tamil Nadu remains a complex and contentious matter. The court’s summoning of state officials and its issuance of contempt notices highlight the tensions between religious and cultural rights, public order, and the authority of the judiciary. The case’s progression to the Supreme Court also holds significant implications for the broader understanding of religious and cultural expression in public spaces within India. It is a reminder of the intricate balance that must be maintained between the rights of different groups and the government’s responsibility to uphold the rule of law.
blob:https://web.whatsapp.com/c183c06f-8a86-4f91-8ea1-ad4bcc7c655b
The judge ordered issue of summons to both the Home Secretary Amudha and DGP Shankar Jiwal to be present in court in the next hearing to explain their stand.
Comments