The Madras High Court, hearing a petition filed ahead of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh's annual founding observance, put a question to the Tamil Nadu government on Wednesday: what explains the pattern of the organisation requiring judicial intervention each time it seeks to hold a route march?

The matter came before Justice V Lakshminarayanan by way of a petition filed by VG Jagadeesan, an RSS member seeking a court direction that would require police to take up his representation and grant permission for processions on October 18, October 25, November 1, or another date deemed appropriate. The petitioner, who intends to march in uniform and accompanied by a band before convening an open public gathering, sought the court's intervention after his application went unaddressed.

Questions about the government's position were raised from the bench during proceedings. The judge drew attention to the fact that the RSS had been permitted to hold marches even in Jammu and Kashmir, a region with a history of militancy, and questioned the basis on which Tamil Nadu police had withheld that same authorisation year upon year.

Going beyond the immediate dispute, the bench indicated that the administration appeared to treat public processions as an inherently disfavoured category — a stance applied without distinction to organisations as different as the RSS and the Dravidar Kazhagam. The court noted in oral remarks that categorical denials of permission for processions drive organisations toward litigation that could otherwise be avoided, and added that residents seeking to demonstrate were being treated as adversaries rather than as people exercising a lawful right.

The bench further pointed out that the pattern of not authorising protest marches had persisted across successive administrations, with no single party bearing sole responsibility for the practice.

Counsel for the petitioner, Senior Advocate NL Rajah, submitted to the bench that the organisation had been compelled to seek judicial intervention on an annual basis. The organisation, he explained, intended only to observe its annual founding anniversary — which coincides with Vijayadashami — through a procession along a designated route. According to his account, the application was turned away repeatedly by police, who cited potential disruptions to public order as their justification.

Senior Advocate Rajah also put forward a broader point: organisations with established infrastructure, such as the RSS, can pursue judicial review when permission is withheld, whereas smaller parties that lack comparable administrative capacity find themselves without a practical avenue for challenge.

Appearing on behalf of the State, Advocate General Vijay Narayan explained that the RSS application was turned down on the grounds that the proposed venue for both the march and the public meeting falls outside the locations formally designated for such events. Among the concerns he raised were the added demands placed on police forces already managing elevated workloads over the holiday period, as well as the potential for processions to disrupt those going about their shopping. The bench rejected the argument put before it.

The court filing drew attention to a pattern in which the RSS has turned to the High Court annually and obtained favourable outcomes each time, before posing the question of what circumstances in 2026 set that year apart enough to warrant a departure from that established practice. Pressed by the bench to move beyond references to past cases, prosecutors were asked to identify concrete episodes of violence tied to RSS processions.

The judge observed that if the authorities were set on withholding permission for protests, the more straightforward path would be to enact legislation prohibiting marches outright, and asked what purpose the current approach served. He raised the matter of what he characterised as pointless legal action, questioning whether the authorities wanted the reputational fallout that court proceedings might bring.

Procedural guidelines covering RSS route marches had been set out by the court in an earlier ruling. That same year, the group found its application turned away, forcing a fresh round of litigation. In granting permission for the march at that time, the bench made clear that police carried an obligation to safeguard both the general public and those organising the event, and that invoking law and order as a blanket justification would not be acceptable. The court had further indicated that law enforcement would be expected to honour court directives going forward, rather than advancing fresh grounds to turn them away.

Petitioner's counsel has been directed by the bench to consult with State Public Prosecutor John Sathyan on arrangements that would allow both the march and the meeting to proceed without incident. A directive has gone to the State requiring it to submit a written account of its approach to allowing an unimpeded public march. A fresh hearing date of Thursday, October 15 has been set for the case.

The matter is recorded in court records under the designation V.G. Jagadeesan v. the State, with the Chief Secretary and additional parties listed as respondents. The proceeding is listed for October 14, 2026, and was heard before Justice V Lakshminarayanan.