Tough days seem to lie ahead for the Tamil Nadu government as the Supreme Court asked the latter why it did not file an intra-court appeal before a division bench of the Madras High Court challenging the single bench’s order directing the police authorities to grant permission to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to carry out route marches in the state.
This comes in the wake of the Tamil Nadu government’s denial of permission for the route marches despite court orders, leading to contempt notices being issued to key officials.
High Court’s Ruling on RSS Route March
On October 16, Madras High Court Justice G Jayachandran granted permission for route marches and public meetings, responding to 33 petitions filed by local and state-level RSS members. While allowing the rallies, Justice Jayachandran imposed certain conditions and directed the police to grant permission for the marches on October 22 and 29, five days in advance. The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court later permitted marches in 11 southern districts under the same conditions, except in Madurai, Sivaganga, and Ramanathapuram due to Thevar Jayanthi, citing manpower shortage for security. However, permission for marches in these three places could be sought after October 30.
Contempt of Court Petitions and High Court’s Response
In response to the Tamil Nadu government’s denial of permission, RSS leaders issued contempt notices to key officials, including the Director General of Police, Home Secretary, and district SPs and Inspectors of Police. Justice Jayachandran expressed his concerns about the government’s actions, stating that the government either seemed incapable of administering the state or had shown disregard for the court’s orders. He issued statutory notices to the respondents.
When the Assistant Public Prosecutor requested reconsideration of the order and an hour’s time to seek instructions, the judge declined, emphasizing that the order had already been passed. He suggested that both parties remain quiet for the time being.
Supreme Court’s Caution and Upcoming Review
The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta, has deferred the Special Leave Petitions challenging the Madras High Court’s decisions to permit RSS route marches to November 6, 2023. While not commenting on the merits of the case at this stage, the bench has indicated its readiness to pose challenging questions. Justice Kant emphasised that their primary focus is on the maintainability of the SLP, but once that is established, they intend to inquire further and may ask uncomfortable questions.
The legal battle surrounding the RSS route continues, with the Supreme Court poised to review the case in the near future.
While Justice Kant emphasised the importance of determining the Special Leave Petition’s (SLP) maintainability before delving into its merits, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the State of Tamil Nadu, vowed to provide “comfortable answers.” The Court raised questions about potential intra-court appeals, criminal vs. civil considerations, and the authority to deal with writs on the criminal side. Senior advocates Guru Krishnakumar and Madhvi Divan appeared for the respondents, the Writ Petitioners, before the High Court.
Challenges to SLP Maintainability
Justice Kant and Justice Datta clarified that they are not commenting on the merits of the case at this stage, instead focusing on the SLP’s maintainability. Sibal argued that the contempt issue should not be decided until an intra-court appeal is filed. However, the Court suggested that such matters should be raised before the Division Bench. When it was pointed out that in cases involving public order, there may be no intra-court appeal, Justice Datta emphasised that the appeal’s admissibility may hinge on whether the case was heard as a criminal or civil writ. He questioned whether the presiding judge had the authority to handle writs on the criminal side, clarifying that this was not a writ under Section 482 of the CrPC but rather under Section 226.
Justice Datta requested Sibal to provide the orders regarding the maintainability of intra-court appeals on Monday, highlighting the potential difficulties if the appeal is deemed inadmissible. Sibal was also asked why the matter was not filed as an SLP Criminal.
In the SLP, the Tamil Nadu government argued that RSS, as an organisation, is neither a citizen of India nor a corporate body and therefore is not entitled to the Fundamental Right under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, which is reserved for Indian citizens. The government also contended that, based on previous cases, police authorities have the power to refuse permissions for processions when considering the prevailing law and order situation and the state’s paramount security. The route maps of the RSS marches pass through narrow roads and areas with places of worship for minority communities.
The Tamil Nadu government justified its decision to deny permission, citing the history of similar marches in various parts of India, including incidents in West Bengal and Haryana that led to communal clashes. The government deemed it prudent to refuse permission, taking into account these potential risks.
The legal debate over the RSS route marches permission in Tamil Nadu continues to unfold in the Supreme Court. The focus currently lies on the maintainability of the Special Leave Petition, with questions raised regarding potential intra-court appeals and the nature of the case (criminal vs. civil). The State’s arguments against granting permission for the marches rest on concerns related to law and order, security, and the potential for communal clashes based on past events in different regions of India.
