The Madras High Court raised questions on 14 October about the Tamil Nadu police's practice of withholding authorisation for RSS path sanchalan processions, noting that comparable marches had been permitted to proceed in Jammu and Kashmir even under conditions of armed threat.
Those remarks from the bench arose while judges were hearing a petition that requested authorisation for a path sanchalan to be held alongside a public gathering. Justice V Lakshminarayanan questioned the decision to block the gathering in a State with no particular record of unrest, observing that the restriction had generated far more public scrutiny of the organisation than would have arisen had the matter been left uncontested.
The bench directed the petitioner's lawyers to hold consultations with State Public Prosecutor R. John Sathyan, and placed on record an oral observation that the administration appeared to be treating its own citizens as adversaries. Refusals covering both the RSS and Dravidar Kazhagam brought the matter before the court, with representatives from each organisation seeking a judicial remedy.
A court document was lodged by V.G., a member of the RSS. In his representation, Jagadeesan requested that a uniformed procession led by a musical band, followed by a public gathering, be permitted on one of several proposed dates — October 18, October 25, November 1, or an alternative day.
Advocate N.L., who holds senior standing at the bar, appeared in the matter. Counsel for the petitioner, Rajah, told the court that the RSS had been drawn into legal proceedings on multiple occasions simply to proceed with its Vijayadashami founding-day observances. He also raised questions about police reliance on public-order justifications, along with a question about whether smaller groups lacking comparable funding and infrastructure could realistically obtain the same kind of court-ordered protection.
Prosecutors argued that the venue put forward for the public meeting had not been designated as an approved location for gatherings of that kind. Five delegates from the petitioner's side were summoned by the bench to hold talks with the State Public Prosecutor toward reaching an arrangement that would keep the situation calm. A response from the State was called for, with the matter adjourned to 15 October for the next hearing.
The proceedings follow court orders previously put in place to spare both sides from relitigating RSS path sanchalan procession routes each year. In the matter of K. Sethuraj v. State of Tamil Nadu and related consolidated petitions, a ruling handed down on 1 October 2024 noted on the record that permission for processions across 58 separate venues had been turned down at the outset. A court order set the process in motion, with approvals released incrementally and six applications left awaiting a final determination.
Justice G. Jayachandran noted that the framework governing the proceedings had been drawn up after weighing input from the Director General of Police alongside feedback submitted by event organisers. The stated purpose of those provisions was to give future applicants a clear path forward, removing the need for repeated court appearances each year. The ruling further established that the mere presence of religious bodies or groups holding divergent beliefs along a parade route was not, on its own, sufficient grounds to prohibit such a procession from taking place.
The submission in that matter covered logistical considerations — venue authorisation, traffic management, and proposed detour options — while the organisers expressed a preference for police to work within established guidelines rather than put forward new grounds on which to turn down the application.
