NEW DELHI: Tamil Nadu Govt suffered a setback as the Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed the state’s plea against Madras HCs order of allowing Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh to take its route march.
“All the SLPs are dismissed,” a bench of Justices V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal said while pronouncing the verdict.
The verdict was reserved by the bench of in pleas that had challenged HCs September 22, 2022 order by which the single judge had directed the authorities to conduct their march and the February 10, 2023 order in which the HC had noted that the state must uphold citizen’s right to freedom of speech and expression.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi for the state government had contended that there cannot be a blanket mandamus on all route marches and that the Sang did not have a “vested right”. “There is no absolute right to hold a procession. It is subject to various restrictions in Part III of the Constitution. How can there be a direction that marches can be held wherever desired? Some balance,” Rohatgi said.
Laying emphasis on the fundamental right to conduct peaceful assemblies in public spaces being at stake, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani for RSS had contended that the earlier three marches that were conducted by it earlier were peaceful. He also added that although the state while restraining the Sangh from conducting marches had cited the law and order situation created by the Popular Front of India there were no complaints against RSS. “They have no evidence that after the ban took place and they have no incidents after the law & order issue. After PFI was banned by centre, these stopped. No complaints against RSS...The decision is that they have restored law & order after the PFI was banned,” Jethmalani added. Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani With regards to the condition of holding the march indoors, he said, “The condition that they had said was to be indoors. The right to procession is the right to say what you have to say in full public view.”
Terming the case as curious, Senior Advocate Guru Krishna Kumar said, “This is a curious case where State is prohibiting saying that someone might come and attack. Because of someone else's specious conduct. Fundamental rights cannot be regimented in this fashion. "
“We as a country pay some imp to art 19. In this free country 70 years on, can public order & reasonable restrictions be reduced to status reports? This has been filed after the PFI was banned. Whenever there is a restriction on the ability to march, the organisers must take responsibility also but when it comes to actuating the public order it cannot be that it isn’t advisable,” Senior Advocate Maneka Guruswamy conten.