Rss route march case full order of. THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN W.P. Nos.29039, 29323, 29076, 29312, 29255, 29464, 29373, 29326,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.10.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
W.P. Nos.29039, 29323, 29076, 29312, 29255, 29464, 29373, 29326,
29560, 29564, 29544, 29547, 29553, 29382, 29384, 29364, 29605, 29697,
29666, 29566, 29559, 29619, 29732, 29747, 29749, 29753, 29768, 29771,29776, 29762, 29905 & 29906 of 2023 and
W.M.P.Nos.28957, 28626, 28935, 28865, 29081, 29004, 28961, 29198, 29201, 29173, 29177, 29188, 29011, 29013, 29238, 29305, 29666, 29274,
29203, 293373, 29377 & 29529 of 2023
In W.P.No.29039 of 2023
S.Raja Desingu … Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep by its Secretary,
Home Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director General of Police,
Post Box No.601, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Neethimedu, Salem – 636 002.
4. The Inspector of Police,
Vazhapady, Salem – 636 115. …Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to permit the members of Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh ( RSS) to conduct the procession (Route March) wearing their Uniform (Dark olive brown trousers, while shirt, cap, belt, black shoes) lead by a Musical Band from near Vazhappady bus stand towards Cuddalore Road to Vazhappady Bus Stand towards Cuddalore Road (Via Sadiayappa Gounder Street,
Thammampatty Road, Nallathambi Gounder Street, Vathi Padiayatchi Street, Ayya Gounder Street, Paruthi mandi) on 29.10.2023 between 04.00.p.m., and 8.00.p.m., and conduct a public meeting thereof pursuant to their representation to the 2nd to 4th respondents dated 20.09.2023.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Rajagopalan, (Senior Counsel)
For R1 : Mr. R.Shanmuga Sundaram,
(Advocate General)
Assisted by Mr.S.Santhosh
Government Advocate (Crl. Side) and Ms.Shakeena
For R2 to R4 : Mr. Hasan Mohammed Jinnah
State Public Prosecutor
Assisted by Mr.Udhaya Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and Ms. J.R.Archana
***
C O M M O N O R D E R
These batch of Writ Petitions seeking Mandamus filed by the representatives of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (hereinafter referred as: “RSS”).
2. Writ Petitioners are forced to come to the Court seeking Mandamus since their request to grant permission to take rally not granted. The reason for filing these Writ Petitions is, last year their request to take rally was rejected at the eleventh hour. Challenging the rejection order, they approached this Court filing Writ Petition in W.P.No.24540 of 2022 etc. batch., The learned Single Judge permitted the Organisers of RSS to conduct rally on certain conditions. The State filed a Review Application before the learned Single Judge seeking leave to review the order dated 22.09.2022 passed in W.P.No.24540 of 2022 etc., The said Review Application was dismissed on 02.11.2022. Thereafter, for non-compliance of the order. Writ Petitioners initiated contempt proceedings. In the said contempt proceedings, the order passed earlier was partly modified.
3. The modified order of the Learned Single Judge dated 22.09.2022 passed after initiation of the Court proceedings reads as below:-
“9. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant permission to conduct procession and public meeting on 06.11.2022 on the following conditions:
i. The procession and public meetings should be conducted in a compounded premises such as Ground or Stadium. It is made clear that while proceeding to conduct procession and public meeting, the participants shall go by walk or by their respective vehicles without causing any hindrance to the general public and traffic.
ii. During the program, nobody shall either sing songs or speak ill on any individuals, any caste, religion, etc., iii. Those who participate in the program shall not for any reason talk or express anything in favour of organizations banned by Government of India. They should also not indulge in any act disturbing the sovereignty and integrity of our country.
iv. The program should be conducted without causing any hindrance to public or traffic.
v. The participants shall not bring any stick, lathi or
weapon that may cause injury to any one.
vi. The organizer(s) shall make adequate arrangements for drinking water and proper First Aid/Ambulance/Mobile Toilets/CCTV Cameras/Fire
Fighting equipments etc., in consultation with the Police/Civic/Local Bodies as directed by the police.
vii. The organizer(s) shall keep sufficient volunteers to help the police for regulation of traffic and the participants.
viii. Only box type speakers should be used and output of the speakers should not exceed 15 watts~ad within a radius of 30 meters only. Cone Speakers should not be used at any cost.
ix. In the procession, the processionists shall not by any manner offend the sentiments of any religious, linguistics, cultural and other groups
x. An undertaking to reimburse the cost for any damage that may occur enroute to any public/private property and an undertaking to bear the compensation/replacement costs as well, if are to be awarded to any other institution/person, who may apply for the same.
xi. If there is violation of any one of the conditions imposed, the concerned police officer is at liberty to take necessary action, as per law.”
4. Aggrieved by the modification of the earlier order, the Writ Petitioners challenged the modified order through an Intra Court Appeal. It was taken up in Letters Patent Appeal Nos.6 to 50 of 2022 by the Division Bench of this Court headed by Justice R.Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq. After considering the right of the petitioners to conduct the rally and the power of the State to restrict the right and the scope of the contempt proceedings etc., the Division Bench answered in negative to the question whether an order passed in the writ petitions can be altered so as to modify its fulcrum in a contempt proceedings. The Division Bench of this Court, after discussing the case law at length finally concluded as follows:-
“32.Therefore, in the given factual matrix and applying the aforesaid legal proposition, we are of the view that the State authorities must act in a manner to uphold the fundamental right to freedom of speech, expression and assembly as regarded one of the most sacrosanct and inviolable rights envisaged in our Constitution. The State’s approach towards citizens’ right can never be adversarial in a welfare State and it must be considered for granting permission for peaceful rallies, protest, processions or meeting so as to maintain a healthy democracy where the constitution reigns supreme and the fundamental rights of citizens are placed at a lofty pedestal.
33. In the result, the order dated 04.11.2022 passed in the contempt petitions, which is under challange in the present LPAs, is set aside, and the order dated 22.09.2022 passed in the writ petitions stand restored and would be enforceable. As the dates on which the appellants wanted to conduct the routemarch, have passed, it is only appropriate that a direction be issued in this regard. Accordingly, the appellants are directed to approach the State authorities with three different dates of their choice for the purpose of holding the route-march/peaceful procession and the State authorities are directed to grant permission to the appellants on one of the chosen dates out of the three. The organization shall ensure that strict discipline is followed at their end and that there is no provocation or incitement on their part. The State on the other hand has to take adequate safety measures and make traffic arrangements to ensure that the procession and the meeting shall go on peacefully.”
5. The State through its Home Secretary went to Hon’ble Supreme
Court and filed S.L.P with delay petition challenging the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court condoned the delay and entertained the Special Leave Petition. After hearing the State/the petitioner affirmed the order passed by this Court on 22.09.2022. The operative portion of the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgement dated 11.04.2023, for easy reference, is extracted below:-
“11. In view of the above order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as well as various orders passed by this Court, it would be appropriate to direct the respondents to grant permission to conduct procession and to conduct public meeting on 02.10.2022 at various places subject to the following conditions on or before 28.09.2022:-
i. During the program, nobody shall either sign songs or speak ill on any individuals, any caste,
religion, etc., ii. Those who participate in the program shall not for any reason talk or express anything in favour of organizations banned by Government of India. They should also not indulge in any act disturbing the sovereignty and integrity of our country. iii. The program should be conducted without
causing any hindrance to public or traffic. iv. The participants shall not bring any stick,
lathi or weapon that may cause injury to any one.
v. The organizer(s) shall make adequate arrangements for drinking water and proper First Aid/Ambulance/Mobile Toilets/CCTV Cameras/ Fire
Fighting equipments etc., in consultation with the Police/Civic/Local Bodies as directed by the police. vi. The procession shall proceed in any orderly manner along the sanctioned route keeping to the left and shall not halt on the way or cause impediment to the normal flow of traffic. The procession shall occupy only one-fourth of the road.
vii. The organizer(s) shall keep sufficient volunteers to help the police for regulation of traffic and the participants.
viii. The organizer(s) of procession/rally shall be responsible for ensuring that the route permitted to them by the Police Authorities is strictly followed. ix. Only box type speakers should be used and output of the speakers should not exceed 15 watts ad within a radius of 30 meters only. Cone Speakers should not be used at any cost.
x. In the procession, the processionists shall not any manner offend the sentiments of any religious, linguistics, cultural and other groups.
xi. An undertaking to reimburse the cost for any damage that may occur enroute to any public/private property and an undertaking to bear the compensation/replacement costs as well, if are to be awarded to any other institution/person, who may apply for the same.
xii. If there is violation of any one of the conditions imposed, the concerned police officer is at liberty to take necessary action, as per law.”
6. Thus, the order of this Court dated 22.09.2022 passed in W.P.No.24540 of 2022 as confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court had
reached the finality and bends the State. It is also pertinent to note that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while considering the appeal preferred by the State been abreast of the attitude of the State, while considering the request of the Organization seeking permission to conduct rally, weighted the right of the individuals/Organizations vis-a-vis the responsibilities of the State in protecting the right conferred under Part-III of the Constitution, observed that, the main objection raised by the State before the High Court was that after the imposition of ban order on another organization, law and order problems cropped up in certain places and the same led to several cases being registered were knocked at the instances of the petitioners or its organizations.
7. The chart provided by the State Government shows that the members of the respondents organisation were the victims in many of those cases and certainly they were not the perpetrators. Therefore, while upholding the order of the learned Judge dated 22.09.2022, Special Leave petition filed by the Home Secretary was dismissed.
8. The above said factual background required to extracted at length since the State without considering the application for granting permission to conduct rally, made these Writ Petitioners, to wait for nearly a month. Till filing the Writ Petition, they did not pass any order on their representations.
Fearing that, the State may pass orders at the eleventh hour keeping the Organizers guessing, they have filed Writ Petitions.
9. After notice in the Writ Petitions, the State has passed individual orders rejecting the request for conducting rally. It appears that the State Administration through the Superintendent of Police of the District concern had given a questionnaire containing about 36 questions and sought for the response of the applicant within 24 hours from the receipt of the questionnaires. The applicant had provided informations which are within their exclusive knowledge and from informations gathered. After considering the informations given in response to the questionnaires, invariably all the requests been rejected stating that the response to the questionnaires are not satisfactory.
10. Mr.R.Shanmuga Sundaram, Learned Advocate General hadcirculated tabular column containing informations regarding the representations received from the Writ Petitioners, the proposed route for their road march, the reason for rejection. The tabulation is annexed to this judgment to be read as part and parcel of the judgment.
11. The respondent also filed memo narrating the process they undertook for considering the representations, wherein it is stated that, having rejected their requests seeking permission to conduct the route march, petitioner can only challenge the rejection order and therefore, present writ petitions for Mandamus cannot be persuaded by them any further.
12. Mr.G.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the rejection order is non-est in law. It is an act of disobedience of Supreme Court order which warrants action under Contempt of Courts Act.
13. Mr.N.L.Rajan, learned Senior Counsel, who is representing the petitioner, referring three Judges Bench Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India headed by Justice K.Subba Rao, J.C.Shah and S.M.Sikri in Dwarka Nath -vs- Income Tax Officer, Special Circle D.Ward, Kanpur and another reported in AIR 1966 SC 81 submitted that, Article 226 is couched in comprehensive phraseology to protect the right of the citizen and the Court can mould the relief and need not force the parties to make formal petition to file the Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other Court challenging the rejection order, particularly, when the said rejection order was passed pending Writ Petition seeking Mandamus.
14. This Court is in total agreement with the submission made by the Mr.N.L.Rajan, Learned Senior Counsel. It is pertinent to repeat that the application seeking permission to conduct rally been received by the respondent about a month ago. Till filing of this Writ Petition, they did not pass any order. Therefore, it was specifically alleged that this is the conduct of the State keeping the applications pending till the eleventh hour and rejecting it only after Writ Petitions are filed. In the present circumstances, the rejection order been passed in the course of hearing the Writ Petition, since the rejection order is available and its merits and demerits are canvassed by the learned Counsels on either side, this Court has no hesitation or impediment to mould the prayer as deem fit and necessary.
15. Now, considering the questionnaires and the reason stated by theState Administration for rejecting the representations, it is broadly on the ground that, (i). There are Mosques and Churches in the procession route. (ii). There is a possibility of traffic congestion since there are narrow roads. At the same time, procession in the National Highways road is also shown as reason for rejection. (iii). In one of the rejection order, it is stated that, applicant has not disclosed the existence of Dravidar Kazhagam Office in the procession route. Invariably, in almost all the rejection order, the requests made by the V.C.K. Party and Thamizhar Vazhvurimai Kazhagam, to conduct meeting and procession during the said period is also shown as one of the reason for rejection. Some of the earlier untowards incidents leading to registration of criminal cases are also mentioned. The chart provided by the learned Advocate General, which annexed to the judgment, are lame reasons to say the least. The State to circumvent or defy the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court order to deny permission to the Organization to conduct rally in a democratic manner had listed out reasons and it only exposes the inability of the State machinery.
16. When the matter was taken up for hearing, this Court requested thelearned Advocate General and learned Public Prosecutor whether there is any difficulty in granting permission in a particular place or particular date or on a particular time or on a particular route. If there is any such difficulty, same can be intimated to the Organizers to alter the date or time or place or route. But the rejection order passed subsequently clearly shows that, the State has no intention to permit this Organization to conduct the Rally on 22.10.2023 or 29.10.2023. The reasons stated in their rejection order is not pertinent to the inconvenience of the State to provide protection particular date or time but on the general reasons which will always be in existence at all point in the entire 365 days of the year. In few of the rejection orders, it is stated that,
Devar Jayanthi is to conducted on 30.10.2023, therefore, mobilization of the
Force to the Southern part of the State is required. Whereas, in the Writ Petitions, this Court finds the Organizers of RSS from the Southern District had sought permission to conduct Procession/meeting only on 22.10.2023, which is about 8 days earlier to the Devar Jayanthi. Hence, this reason is not appeared to be genuine or reasonable.
17. Mr.G.Karthikeyan, learned Senior Counsel draw the attention ofthis Court by referring the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Ramasamy Udayar -vs- The District Collector, Perambalur District and others (W.A.Nos.743 & 2064 of 2019), wherein, the Division Bench of this Court, while considering the dispute between the two groups in connection with the enjoyment of a land, had observed in an unambiguous term that, “As per Section 180-A of the District Municipalities Act 1920, roads or streets should be used as access to the people irrespective of their religion, caste or creed. Merely because one religious group is dominating in a particular locality, it cannot be a ground to prohibit from celebrating religious festivals or taking processions of other religious groups through those roads. If it is to be accepted, then a day will come when a particular religious group which is predominantly occupying the area, will not the people belonging to other religious groups even to use the roads even for movement, transportation or the normal access. Even the marriage processions and funeral processions would be prohibited/prevented which is not good for our society.”
18. This observation need to be referred because in all the rejectionorders, District Administration has quoted the existence of Mosques and Churches in the procession route. In the very same judgment, the Division
Bench has declared as follows:-
“24.If there going to be any law and order problem, the police authorities have to intervene and prevent any untoward incidents and give appropriate police protection. Therefore, the case of the petitioner has to be accepted and there shall be a direction to the authorities to permit the Hindus to conduct two processions on the first and second day of the village temple festivals through all the streets and roads which have been conducted till 2015. As far as the procession on the third day of temple festival is concerned, the petitioner himself accepted that Hindus would not conduct the procession in which the turmeric water would be sprinkled.
25.The abovesaid facts of the case would reveal that all along there had been religious tolerance and the religious festivals were conducted very smoothly and religious procession were conducted without any problem through all the streets and roads of the village. If religious intolerance is going to be allowed, it is not good for a secular country. Intolerance in any form by any religious group has to be curtailed and prohibited. In this case, intolerance of a particular religious group is exhibited by objecting for the festivals which have been conducted for decades together and the procession through the streets and roads of the village are sought to be prohibited stating that the area is dominated by Muslims and therefore, there cannot be any Hindu festival or procession through the locality. India is a secular country and merely because one religious group is living in majority in a particular area, it cannot be a reason for not allowing other religious festivals or processions through that area. If the contention of the private respondent is to be accepted then it would create a situation in which minority people cannot conduct any festival or procession in most of the areas in India. If resistance is being exhibited by one religious group and it is reciprocated by the other religious groups, there would be chaos, riots, religious fights causing loss of lives and destruction of properties. Consequently, the secular character of our country will be destroyed or damaged.
26.Hence, it is hereby declared,
1.Once it has been declared by the authorities as roads or streets as per Section 180-A of the District Municipalities Act, the roads and streets which are “secular”, should be used as roads by all the people irrespective of their religion, caste or creed.
2.Any procession including religious procession shall be conducted through all the roads and streets without any restriction.
3.Any procession including religious procession cannot be prohibited or curtailed merely because another religious group is residing or doing business in the area predominantly.
4.There cannot be a prohibition for any procession including religious processions through roads by the District administration or police authorities and there can be only regulation by the police or other Government authorities to see that no untoward incident occurs or any law and order problem arises.
5.Every religious group has got fundamental right to take out religious procession through all the roads without insulting the other religious sentiments and without raising any slogans against other religious groups, affecting their sentiments, public law and order.
6.Merely because there is one place of worship belonging to other religious group, the same cannot be a ground to decline/deny permission to conduct procession including religious procession of other religions to go through those roads or streets
7.The presence of religious structures/places of worship cannot take away the right of other religious groups who have been enjoying all the rights including the conduct of religious procession for the past many years.”
19. The tenure of the rejection order certainly not in tune with Secular or democratic way of governance. It is neither in obedience or compliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dictum. By citing the existence of the structures, place of worship of other religion or office of some organizations, which do not share the same ideology of RSS, the request of RSS to conduct procession and public meeting is rejected. This order is contrary to the principle of Secularism which is the foundation of our Constitution of India.
20. Having said so, the Organizers of the rally who had sought permission for procession and meeting should give an undertaking to the District Superintendent of Police, to whom they sought for permission to conduct the rally, that they will scrupulously follow the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and they will not deviate the guidelines and any other restrictions reasonably laid by the District Administration.
21. The Respondents shall ensure peaceful procession by providing adequate bandobust. Having now aware of the route and prospective spots which required concentration and attention, it is the duty and responsibility of the District Administration to make all necessary arrangements for peaceful conduct of the rally/procession and the public meeting.
22. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are Allowed, on following terms, in addition to the guidelines laid by this Court vide order dated 22.09.2022 affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Civil).No.4163 of 2023 dated 11.04.2023.

i) The Superintendent of Police of the concerned District, to whom the application is made shall issue permission after having consultation with the Organizers, if necessary.
ii) The Organizers of the processions may be amenable for minor change in the route, if the District Administration feels that, it may be difficult for them to provide bandobust in a particular route. If there is any such difficulty, the District Administration can have consultation with the Organizers and provide alternative route.
iii) The starting point and ending point shall not be
compromised under the guise of changing the route.
(iv). The permission in writing with necessary restriction to be issued atleast three days prior to the date of rally/meeting.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
16.10.2023
Index : Yes/No. Internet :Yes/No.
Neutral Citation : Yes/No. sma
Copy to:-
1. The Secretary, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director General of Police, Post Box No.601, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Neethimedu, Salem – 636 002.
4. The Inspector of Police, Vazhapady, Salem – 636 115.
5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Dr. G.JAYACHANDRAN ,J.
Sma
W.P.No.29039 of 2023 etc batch
16.10.2023