The Madras High Court on Wednesday asked the Tamil Nadu police why the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) was denied permission to hold its annual route march in the state, irrespective of the party in power.
If the “State of Jammu and Kashmir” could allow meetings or marches by the RSS, “why Tamil Nadu can not have it?” Justice V Lakshminarayanan said.
“What is your fear? Every year they (RSS) are coming (for permission) amd the Court is granting. What is so exceptional in 2026? Has there been any violence so far in their march?” the high court asked. “State is looking at citizens as enemies, what to do?” Justice Lakshminarayanan remarked, adding that successive governments had rejected such requests.
The court was hearing a petition filed by RSS North Tamil Nadu secretary VG Jagadeesan, challenging police orders denying permission for marches scheduled across the state.
Jagadeesan’s plea sought permission for RSS route marches on October 18 and 25 and November 1. The petitioner proposed that participants wear the organisation’s uniform and march alongside a musical band, followed by public meetings.
Advocate general Vijay Narayan argued that the routes proposed for the RSS marches were unsuitable and that permitting the processions during the festive season would “inconvenience the public, particularly those out shopping for Diwali and Navratri.”
Narayan said the marches would also require substantial police deployment at a time when the authorities had other responsibilities.
The judge questioned the need for repeated litigation over permissions for processions and suggested that the state should enact legislation if it intended to prohibit them altogether.
“Pass a legislation saying no person will be entitled to take a procession or a march if the State is insistent on denying permission,” the high court said.
Senior advocate NL Rajah, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the RSS had conducted annual marches since its inception in 1925. He also submitted that procedural guidelines governing processions did not constitute inflexible statutory requirements and that the police should seek clarifications from organisers instead of rejecting applications outright.
Rajah objected to police orders referring to mosques along the proposed routes, arguing that such reasoning undermined Tamil Nadu’s communal harmony.
Justice Lakshminarayanan also said that the presence of places of worship along a route should not, by itself, justify refusing permission.
Advocate general Narayan argued that the proposed routes were unsuitable and that the marches could inconvenience the public during the festive season. He also cited the substantial police deployment that the events would require.
The court directed the petitioner’s counsel to meet state public prosecutor R John Sathyan on Wednesday to discuss the dates, timings and routes, and report the outcome on October 15.
Note: I have retained the wording of the direct quotes, including “amd” and “can not”, as requested. Please verify these apparent errors against the court’s recorded remarks before publication.