The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed an appeal by the Tamil Nadu government against an order by the Madras High Court overturning the single judge’s restrictions on the march route that was to follow the Rashtriya parade. Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in the state. The Court of Appeals also denied a separate motion from the state government related to an order issued by the Supreme Court’s sole judge in September 2022 allowing the organization to hold the motorcade.
[K Phanindra Reddy vs and ors G Subramanian]
A panel of V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal said: “All requests for special leave were denied.”
On 27 March the Supreme Court stayed its judgment on the Tamil Nadu government’s charges against the Madras High Court’s 10 February order , which authorized the RSS to hold demonstrations in the state.
The release schedule is as follows.
On September 22, 2022, a single panel of the High Court issued an order allowing the RSS to hold a march on October 2.
The RSS then filed a contempt lawsuit alleging that the state failed to follow a single bench recommendations.
On November 4, 2022, a single bench, while considering a disregard motion, changed the original order and allowed the RSS to hold marches under 11 conditions, e.g. B. Holding marches in restricted areas such as the ground and stadium; do not carry sticks, turrets, or other weapons that could injure you; do not make statements that hurt the feelings of other groups; No one can sing songs or speak ill of individuals, caste, religion, etc.
Supreme Court arguments
At the first court hearing, Lead Counsel Mukul Rohatgi, representing the state government, said he was not totally opposed to the route into the state proposed by Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), but that he wanted it to exist limited conditions in some areas. He argued that the state had only followed the call in a few areas “affected by PFIs, bombings, etc.” Walking is only allowed under certain conditions. In light of the intelligence reports from ,it was felt appropriate to impose some conditions.
Senior Attorney Mr.Mahesh Jethmalani, speaking on behalf of the RSS, pointed out that the state has allowed protest marches by other organizations such as the Dalit Panther and the ruling DMK party, but the RSS has been targeted.
At the hearing, the bench found that on November 4, 2022, the single justice of the High court imposed additional conditions by amending his previous order of September 29, 2022. This was in exercising jurisdiction on a complaint brought on behalf of RSS contempt, alleging that the state failed to comply with the first injunction. Judge Ramasubramanian asked Mr. Rohatgi if a single jury could have altered the original restraining order while exercising the power of contempt. Mister Rohatgi responded that the state requested a review of the original injunction, which was granted in a protest motion filed by the RSS. He agreed that the correct course of action was to challenge the original order, but added that in a public interest case like this, the Court of Appeals should not look to the technical details. He added that the technical issue could be resolved if the state, contrary to the initial order, files an SLP complaint with the Supreme Court.
Finally, against the original order of the Madras High Court single judge of 22 September 2022, the State submitted a new application for a special permit allowing the organization to hold processions.
Mister. Jethmalani argued that the right to peaceful and unarmed assembly under Article 19( 1) (b) cannot be restricted without good reason. Against his claims, Rohatgi argued: “In any case, is there a reasonable right to pass through India Gate or the Supreme Court? Can there be an absolute right to organize processions where the organization so desires?He told the jury that in some places the state government allowed the RSS to organize street marches and required them to create suitable internal alternatives, or in other places denied their request outright to protect public order and peace.
Jethmalani also questioned the state government’s decision to deny the organization a license, citing clashes between members of the recently banned Indian Popular Front and the RSS. Senior Attorney Guru Krishna Kumar on RSS supported Mr. Jethmalani’s arguments. Representing the RSS, senior spokesperson Maneka Guruswamy said the right of any group to peacefully assemble and “occupy public space and march” should not be restricted unless there is a reasonable fear of an escalation of the hostility.He said the state police report did not meet the conditional standard of reasonable restraint.
Case Title: Phanindra Reddy, IAS And Ors. v. G. Subramanian SLP(C) No. 4163/2023]
Written by -Anushka yadav student of the ba.llb 2nd semester at Rnb global University bikaner Rajasthan
0 Comments