The SC bench of Justices V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal said the HC not only interpreted the relevant provisions of the law correctly, but also imposed necessary conditions while allowing the marches in sensitive areas. On March 27, the SC had reserved its verdict on a plea of the state with RSS urging its fundamental rights couldn’t be curtailed and the state saying the rights weren’t absolute.

01:57
Tamil Nadu: Shock to Tamil Nadu government from Supreme Court, petition to ban RSS rally rejected
As rightly contended by all the learned senior counsel on the side of the respondent, the main objection raised by the state before the high court was that after the imposition of a ban order on another organisation, law and order problems cropped up in certain places and that the same led to several cases being registered. Details of those cases are actually furnished in the memorandum of grounds of special leave petition(s). We do not wish to extract in this order, the chart provided by the state… on account of its sensitivities,” the Supreme Court bench said.
“But the chart provided by the state government shows that the members of the respondent organisation were the victims in many of those cases and that they were not the perpetrators. Therefore, it is not possible for us to find fault with the order passed by the learned judge either in the main writ petitions or in the review applications. Hence all the special leave petitions are liable to be dismissed,” the apex court added.

04:00
Supreme Court upholds Madras High Court judgement allowing RSS to carry route marches in Tamil Nadu
The state contended that RSS should be allowed to take out marches in particular routes but it should hold such marches indoors in other areas to maintain public order and tranquillity. It said that the government was not completely opposed to allowing the RSS’s route marches and public meetings across the state but cited intelligence reports to say these cannot be held in every street or locality. RSS, however, strongly opposed the plea of the state and said the right to assemble peacefully is its fundamental right which could not be curtailed in the absence of a very strong ground.

Comments are closed.