The Madras High Court on Wednesday, 14 October 2026, questioned the Tamil Nadu government's repeated refusal to grant permission for an RSS route march and directed the state to work with organisers to facilitate a peaceful procession and public meeting. The court's intervention came on a petition filed by RSS member V.G. Jagadeesan, who sought police clearance for marches on 18 October, 25 October, 1 November, or another suitable date to mark the organisation's founding day coinciding with Vijayadashami.

Key Observations by the Court

Justice V. Lakshminarayanan orally criticised the state's pattern of rejecting applications for processions, noting that such denials compelled organisations to approach the judiciary and generated avoidable litigation. The judge pointedly observed that permission had been denied to groups across the ideological spectrum — including the Dravidar Kazhagam and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

Justice Lakshminarayanan also questioned why RSS marches faced restrictions in Tamil Nadu when they were reportedly permitted even in Jammu and Kashmir. In a further oral remark, the court said the state appeared to treat citizens as adversaries when handling requests for protests and processions.

The Petitioner's Case

Senior advocate N.L. Rajah, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the RSS had faced the same difficulty year after year despite seeking only to celebrate its founding day. Police, he submitted, routinely cited potential law and order concerns to reject applications. Rajah also raised a broader access-to-justice concern, questioning how smaller organisations without the resources for prolonged litigation could secure permission if faced with similar blanket refusals.

The proposed programme envisaged participants marching in uniform with a musical band, followed by a public meeting.

State Government's Position

Advocate General Vijaya Narayan told the court that permission had been denied because the proposed venue was not a notified location for holding public meetings — offering a procedural rather than a law and order rationale, distinct from the one cited by police in previous years.

Court's Directions and Next Steps

The court directed five representatives from the petitioners' side to meet State Public Prosecutor John Sathyan and work out arrangements for conducting the programme peacefully. It adjourned the hearing to Thursday and asked the state to submit a report on measures for permitting a peaceful procession.

This dispute has a documented history. Earlier court guidelines had already set out conditions governing RSS route marches in Tamil Nadu. Despite those directives, permission was refused again in 2024, triggering fresh litigation. While ultimately allowing those marches, the court had made clear that police must protect both organisers and the public, comply with judicial directions, and refrain from inventing law and order grounds to reject applications.

With Thursday's hearing now set, the state faces pressure to demonstrate a good-faith effort to resolve the standoff rather than revert to routine refusal — a pattern the court has now criticised across multiple proceedings.