Madras High Court
K.Sethuraj vs / on 1 October, 2024
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
W.P.No.27983 of 2024 etc batch
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.10.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
W.P.Nos.27983, 27984, 28008, 28056, 28053, 28013, 28040, 28017, 28025,
28031, 28036, 28057, 28060, 28071, 28106, 28139, 28143, 28163, 28176,
28196, 28228, 28231, 28235, 28232, 28277, 28279, 28291,28296,28317, 28319,
28385, 28399, 28403, 28405, 28408, 28411, 28419, 28427, 28435, 28464,
28481, 28497, 28498, 28508, 28512, 28515, 28578, 28582, 28593, 28626,
28717, 28718, 28720, 28725, 28727, 28790, 28793 and 28882 of 2024
W.P.No.27983 of 2024
K.Sethuraj ... Petitioner
/versus/
l.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Home Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009
2.The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu, Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Dindigul District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Oddanchatram Police Station,
Oddanchatram ... Respondents
Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
to issue a Writ of Mandamus, direct the respondent’s herein to permit the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/14
W.P.No.27983 of 2024 etc batch
petitioner and other members to take out a Procession (Route March) wearing
their uniforms led by a musical band on 06.10.2024 at 4.00.p.m from near
Checkpost roundana, Oddanchatram, Police Station front Road, Bus Stand Front
Road, Tharapuram Road, EB Office near to Karthik Theatre Tharapuram Road
(Route Enclosed) and hold a public Meeting in Karthik Theatre Opposite
Tharapuram Road (near Chitra complex) at 6.00.p.m .
For Petitioners : Mr.N.L.Rajah, Senior Counsel
: Mr.G.Karthikeyan, Senior Counsel
: Mr.G.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel
: Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj
For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan (all cases)
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
***
COMMON ORDER
The batch of Writ Petitions are filed being aggrieved by the inaction on
the part of the police, on the representations given by the organizers of
Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (in short: 'RSS') seeking permission to conduct
Route March on 06.10.2024.
2. The refusal of permission or inaction on the part of the police not
considered the request for conducting Route March by RSS is not new to the
organisation or to this Court. In more than 10 cases, this Court either by a
Single Judge and by Division Bench had directed the police to grant permission
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27983 of 2024 etc batch
with conditions. Even last year, when similar request was made by RSS, the
police refused to grant permission and the organizers came to this Court. This
Court allowed the writ petition directing the police to grant permission on
certain conditions. However, the order was not complied. Hence the organizer
filed contempt petition, in which, this Court issued statutory notice to the
contemnors. Being aggrieved, the contemnors went to the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the police authorities to put forth
their proposal for granting permission and after consultation with the organizers,
permission should be granted, if this is complied, the contempt petition to be
considered as per the subsequent events and circumstances.
3. Thereafter, the Director General of Police of the State gave a
detailed proposal under what conditions, permission for the Route March can be
granted. The proposals were circulated to the organizers and they came out with
their own objections and suggestions. After scrutinizing the proposal by the
DGP and objections and suggestions by the organizers, this Court passed
detailed order listing out the conditions to be imposed and also observed that
this should be a guidance for future also and the organizers need not come to
this Court every year, as it was in vogue so far. Unfortunately, the spirit of the
Judgment and the observations of this Court that the said guidelines to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27983 of 2024 etc batch
followed in future is floated very next year and that is the reason these batch of
writ petitions, now before this Court.
4. To put the facts in nutshell, the local organisers of RSS had made
application for permission to conduct Route March on 06.10.2024 at 58 places.
These petitions were filed for Mandamus to consider the representations.
Meanwhile, all the 58 applications were rejected. This Court hence directed
Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) to verify with the
respondents for what reason the Hon'ble Supreme Court directions and the
directions of this Court been disobeyed and adjourned the matter to 30.09.2024
to revisit the orders of rejection.
5. When the matter taken up for consideration on 30.09.2024, the
learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that out of 58 applications, 42
applications were considered and permission granted.
6. The learned Senior Counsels appearing for the petitioners submits
that though on the face of the order it appears permission granted by complying
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27983 of 2024 etc batch
the Court order by adding untenable and new conditions which is not
permissible and accepted, in fact it is an act of disobedience in the light of the
order dated 05.01.2024 passed by this Court in the batch of Contempt Petitions.
7. Then again, this Court directed the learned Government Advocate
(Crl.Side) to verify whether the permission granted bristles with colourable
exercise of power and why the remaining 16 applications not been considered
and posted the matter for hearing today.
8. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) had after verifying
the records and consultation with the respondents, reported that the permission
granted for the 42 applicants with certain conditions were modified and errata
been issued taking into consideration the order passed by this Court on
05.01.2024. As far as the remaining 16 applications, 10 applications were
allowed and only 6 applications were rejected and the reasons been stated in the
order of rejection.
9. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) listed the following
applications, which were rejected:-
Avadi Commissionarate - (i) Mangadu and (ii) Korattur
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27983 of 2024 etc batch
Tambaram Commissionarate- (i) Medavakkam and (ii) Selaiyur,
Coimbatore Commissionarate - Rathinapuri
Tuticorin Commissionarate – Sawyerpuram.
10. The reasons for rejecting these six applications are in nutshell as
under:-
Mangadu: The starting point and ending point is mentioned as Amrita
Vidyalayam and also the meeting was supposed to be held in the play ground of
Amrita Vidyalayam. But the consent letter of Amrita Vidyalayam Management
not enclosed and on verification, the school authority had informed the police
that they have not given any consent for conducting meeting.
Korattur: The school authority namely Dr.Nalli Kuppuswami
Vivekananda Vidyalaya had not given written consent for conducting public
meeting.
11. In response to this, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner submits that they are ready to produce the consent letter from
the School authorities by tomorrow and the respondent shall consider the
consent letter and grant permission or in case of any alternate, they will provide
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27983 of 2024 etc batch
different meeting place and same may be considered.
12. As far as Medavakkam in Tambaram Commissionerate, the
reason for rejection is that the route suggested by the organizer is the route
where CMRL work is in progress, already the traffic is very congested in that
route and the organizers had not given any other alternate route.
13. Similarly permission for Selaiyur been rejected on the ground that the
route is through narrow road and bus route. Also the learned Government
Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that this is not the route where the organizers
conducted Route March previous year and if request is made by the organizer
for the route, in which, they conducted Route March last year, same will be
considered.
14. In response to this, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners submitted that as far as Medavakkam is concerned, they are ready to
go in an alternate route which will not cover the CMRL route except less than
few hundred meters and that alternate route may be considered by the
authorities.
15. As far as Selaiyur, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27983 of 2024 etc batch
learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that previous year, the organizers
conducted the Route March at Chitlapakkam and if the organizers seek
permission to conduct Route March where they conducted last year, same will
be possibly considered.
16. At Coimbatore Commissionerate, the request of the organizers to
conduct their Route March at a place, which falls within the territorial
jurisdiction of Rathinapuri police station was rejected. The learned Government
Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that the permission to conduct Route March within
the Vadavalli police station limit been granted. The distance between Vadavalli
and Rathinapuri is about 8 kms. Therefore, the police finds difficult to mobilise
the force to two different places within 8 kms. Further, the route is very
sensitive and the past incident had given the wisdom to the police not to permit
Route March.
17. Mr.G.Karthikeyan, the learned Senior Counsel submits that
permission granted to Vadavalli is not the reason for rejecting the permission to
conduct Route March at Rathinapuri. In fact the rejection order mentions about
the existence of Mosque in the route as one of the reason. Whereas, the Division
Bench of this Court and the Single Judge of this Court earlier had made a very
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27983 of 2024 etc batch
pointed comment on the authorities decision for not permitting procession or
route march through the religious structure of other community is in the enroute.
As far as the past incident is concerned, both the learned Government Advocate
(Crl.Side) as well as the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the incident are
not concern with RSS route march.
18. This Court, after considering the submissions put forth on behalf of
the State as well as the petitioner in so far the request for permission to conduct
Route March in Rathinapuri in Coimbatore District, finds that it is suffice to say
that if the School authority gives the letter of consent for conducting public
meeting in their ground, permission to be granted. It should not be denied for
any other reasons. The other reasons which are found in the rejection order are
untenable. This Court had repeatedly held that presence of other religious
institutions or building or organisations with different ideology cannot be a bar
for conducting Route March. Public road is always a public road. Persons who
have some interest on the road margin cannot decide whom to pass through the
public road.
19. Regarding Sawyerpuram, Tuticorin District, the reasons stated for
rejection is the ensuing Dhasara festival which is conducted at
Kulasekarapattinam in a grand manner. The organizer is sensible about that and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27983 of 2024 etc batch
have agreed to conduct Route March at Sawyerpuram on 20.10.2024. The
authorities shall consider their request for alternate date and pass appropriate
orders.
20. As far as the permission to conduct Route March by RSS organizers,
there cannot be any other conditions except the conditions which have been
settled after consulting the police authorities, the proposal given by the Director
General of Police and the organizers which form part of the order passed by this
Court dated 05.01.2024. The Route March in the permitted route followed by
the public meeting shall be on 06.10.2024 between 3.00 p.m., and 7.00 p.m.
21. Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj, Learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner, V.K.Paramasivan in W.P.No.28790 of 2024 who had sought
permission to conduct Route March at Tenkasi, is aggrieved by the route
suggested by the police which is not one of the three routes proposed by the
organizer.
22. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that
Koolakkadai bazaar, where the organizer wants to pass through, is very
congested and sensitive area. Therefore, all the three routes were rejected and
different route been suggested.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27983 of 2024 etc batch
23. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the route
suggested by the police is totally out of the town and outskirts bypass road and
this will defeat the purpose of Route March, which is meant for sensitize
general public about Nationalism and Patriotism.
24. Considering the submissions and the difficulty expressed by the
police officers of the Tenkasi district, out of three routes proposed by the
organizers, instead of L.R.S.Palayam Thidal as commencing and point passing
through Koolakkadai bazaar, the organizer shall commence their procession in
and around the old bus stand whichever is suitable to them and permissible by
the police. They shall reach Esakki Mahal ground where they proposed to
conduct the public meeting.
25. This Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the previous
round of litigation issued directions and expressed belief that guidelines issued
be followed scrupulously by the police as well as the organizers and there
should not be any need for the organisers to approach the Court in future.
However, it is proved to be an illusion. This reminds the tale of “Vedha and
Vikram”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27983 of 2024 etc batch
26. At least in coming years, this Court hopes that the guidelines
issued by this Court in its order dated 05.01.2024 be followed and the police
will not trouble the Court by rejecting the request for RSS Route March by
inventing novel and fanciful reasons.
27. With the above observations, these Writ Petitions are disposed of.
No costs.
01.10.2024
Index : Yes.
Internet : Yes.
rpl
Note: Issue Today (01.10.2024)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27983 of 2024 etc batch
To:-
l.The Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Home Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009
2.The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu, Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Dindigul District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Oddanchatram Police Station,
Oddanchatram
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27983 of 2024 etc batch
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
rpl
W.P.No.27983 of 2024 etc batch
01.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
