The Madras High Court on Friday authorized RSS to conduct route marches in 44 sites in Tamil Nadu, excluding six sites in two municipally sensitive districts of Coimbatore and Kanyakumari, on Nov. 6.
Judge GK Ilanthiraiyan heard a number of contempt petitions filed by the RSS against the state police for not allowing the march to go ahead. The court said the event cannot be allowed in six places – Coimbatore, Pollachi, Palladam, Mettupalayam, Arumanai and Nagercoil – because they are sensitive locations, and rejected the state government’s decision to refuse permission in other places. The court also asked the RSS to ensure peace during the march and that all conditions are met.
“The procession and public gatherings should be held in compound buildings such as a ground or a stadium. It has been made clear that, as the participants continue to hold a procession and public gathering, they will pass by their respective vehicles without hindering the general public and traffic,” it said.
The order read: “No one shall sing songs or speak ill of individuals, caste, religion, etc.” not yield to any act that disrupts the sovereignty and integrity of our country.”
Police refused permission in Coimbatore, citing the prevailing condition in the wake of a car blast outside a temple on Oct. 23. The order said the RSS may approach the police for permission after two months.
The petition filed on Nov. 2 on behalf of the RSS said route march permission was granted for only three of the 50 places, for public gatherings in a covered place in 23 places and complete denial in 24 places.
The state government had submitted the intelligence report in a sealed envelope detailing cases registered between 2008 and 2020 for denying permission for the route march. However, the court said that all the FIRs were “very old and the reasons mentioned in the report cannot be accepted, because there are accusations everywhere and there are FIRs against them”.
“Therefore, mere adherence to the FIRs against a particular organization cannot be a reason to reject the petitioners’ request,” the order said.