The Madras High Court on Wednesday questioned the Tamil Nadu government's repeated refusal to grant permission for route marches by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), asking what the State feared from such processions [Jagadeesan Vs State].
The Court was hearing a petition challenging police orders refusing permission for RSS marches proposed in October.
"What is your fear? Are you fearing..." Justice V Lakshminarayanan asked the Tamil Nadu Advocate General.
Advocate General Vijay Narayan explained that permitting the marches would require substantial police deployment at a time when the authorities also had other responsibilities during the festive season.
He added that processions could inconvenience members of the public engaged in shopping and other activities.
The Court, however, questioned why the State continued to refuse permission despite previous judicial orders allowing RSS processions.
"Every year they (RSS) are coming (seeking permission for rallies), every year, court is granting. What is so exceptional for 2026? Has there been any violence so far in their march?" the Court remarked.
When the Advocate General referred to previous criminal cases, the judge sought specific instances of violence attributable to RSS processions.
"Where, sir? Where criminal cases on account of violence, you please tell me," said Justice Lakshminarayanan.
The Court also raised concerns about the State's general approach towards citizens seeking to exercise their constitutional rights.
"State is looking at citizens as enemies, what to do?"
The judge observed that a change in attitude was necessary and that successive governments had been refusing permission for processions.
"Whichever government is in power, they are rejecting it," he remarked.
The Court questioned the need for repeated litigation over such permissions.
"Pass a legislation saying no person will be entitled to take a procession or a march (if the State is insistent on denying permission for protests) ... Why are you doing this? Unnecessary litigation. Or you want adverse publicity?" the judge asked.
He further observed that there was nothing inherently objectionable about an organisation seeking to celebrate its founding day through a procession.
"They (RSS) say that their founding day is on that holy day. They want to have a route march on that day. What is wrong with that?" the Court remarked.
Senior Advocate NL Rajah appeared for the petitioner, an RSS member. The senior counsel submitted that the RSS members were themselves had been victims of violence during other processions.
Rajah further argued that procedural guidelines governing processions could not be treated as inflexible statutory requirements. He submitted that the police should seek clarifications from organisers rather than reject applications outright.
He also objected to references to mosques along proposed procession routes in the rejection orders, contending that such reasoning undermined Tamil Nadu's communal harmony.
The Court indicated that the presence of places of worship along a proposed route should not, by itself, be a ground for refusing permission.
It eventually directed counsel for the petitioner, accompanied by three other counsel, to meet the State Public Prosecutor and attempt to resolve the objections raised by the authorities.
The matter was posted for further hearing on October 15.