Madras High Court reserves verdict in RSS plea against order imposing conditions on proposed route march

The Madras High Court on Tuesday reserved its verdict in a batch of petitions filed by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) challenging a single-judge order that had imposed several conditions on its proposed route march in Tamil Nadu [G Subramanian v. K Phanindra Reddy]. .A Bench of Justices R Mahadevan and Mohammed Shaffiq was hearing appeals against the November 4 order passed by a single-judge directing the organisation to, among other things, conduct its route march in an enclosed space, or indoors..On Tuesday, Senior Advocate NL Rajah, who appeared for the RSS, reiterated that Tamil Nadu was the only state in the country where the RSS route march and public meeting had not taken place on October 2, because of the State government's opposition.Rajah argued that public processions were an "acceptable manner of expression of speech," and asked how a procession could held indoors."The role of the State in a democracy is to permit me to say what I want to say. Not to curb my speech," he said..He also pointed out that on September 29, the Court had directed the State police to consider the representation made by the RSS for such route march and to grant them permission. The Court had also asked for a security intelligence report from the State and subsequently noted that there were no apparent security threats at the time. On November 4, however, the Bench imposed several conditions, including a direction to the RSS to conduct the march indoors or in an enclosed space. Rajah submitted that the November 4 order amounted to "modification" of the Court's earlier order and should not be condoned. "Is it open for the Court to modify its earlier order in a contempt petition? The Court passed orders and the parties acted upon the order. Now, the police cannot come back to the Court and say that they cannot follow the order. And the Court cannot take note of that submission and modify it's own order. It is not a case of an ex-parte order. They were served notice and were given ample opportunities," he argued. .The Tamil Nadu government contended that petitions filed by RSS were not maintainable, since the single-judge had already held that in refusing or modifying permission to the RSS, the State government had not committed any wilful disobedience, and no case for contempt of court was made out. Representing the State, Senior Advocate NR Elango argued that it was the duty of the State to maintain law and order and that included taking preventive steps. Elango argued that following the November 4 order, the RSS itself had called off the route march. "We did not say that we will not allow. They (RSS) only said that they will not carry out. They said they will carry out after due deliberation. What due deliberation? When to carry out? That they have not stated anything yet," he said.He further said that the State did not oppose the beliefs of any group or religion, but was merely keeping in mind the interest and the safety of the society at large. "The interest of the society is more important than their interest," Elango added. .RSS moves Madras High Court challenging single-judge order that imposed conditions on its route march