Can the police alone decide whether a citizen may march? In the RSS Route March Case, the Madras High Court has told Tamil Nadu that rights cannot be left to the whims and fancies of the police, and has called the State’s reasons for refusing permission “lame”.
Chennai: Hearing a writ petition on the refusal of permission for Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) route marches, the Madras High Court on Thursday, 15 October 2026, asked the Tamil Nadu government to justify leaving such decisions to the police. It directed the petitioner to furnish the proposed routes, the person in charge and the number of participants, and asked the Advocate General to take instructions from the Director General of Police before the next hearing on Friday [VG Jagadeesan v. The State].
The petition, filed by RSS North Tamil Nadu State Secretary VG Jagadeesan, is being heard by Justice V Lakshminarayanan, who first took it up earlier this week. Senior Advocate NL Rajah appeared for the petitioner, and Advocate General Vijaya Narayan for the State.
What the petitioner wants
Mr Jagadeesan asks for a direction to the police to act on his representation of 3 October 2026 to the DGP and to permit uniformed route marches, led by a band and followed by public meetings, across Tamil Nadu on 18 October, 25 October or 1 November. The march marks the organisation’s founding day, which coincides with Vijayadashami.
At the first hearing, Senior Advocate NL Rajah said permission is denied every year on law and order grounds, forcing the organisers to come to court. Advocate General Vijaya Narayan said the refusal turned on the chosen venue not being a notified public meeting site. Justice Lakshminarayanan then orally remarked that the government appeared to be “seeing citizens as enemies”, and asked the petitioner’s side to meet State Public Prosecutor John Sathyan to work out a peaceful way of holding the event.
The Court’s remark on police discretion
On Thursday, the Court put its difficulty to the State: decisions on how a citizen may exercise a right were, it said, being left entirely to the police. The Court remarked orally:
“The problem is you’re surrendering everything to police. Citizen’s rights cannot be surrendered to whims & fancies of police.”
The eidgah on the route
Among the grounds cited by the authorities was an eidgah on the proposed route, which the State said is used for gatherings and prayers during Ramzan and Bakrid. The Court was not persuaded. It asked whether the State was suggesting that Ramzan would be celebrated on 30 October, and remarked that such reasoning was “giving a bad name for muslims”.
Calling the State’s reasons “lame”, the Court noted that similar grounds had been turned down in earlier rounds of litigation over the marches.
Faith misplaced on both sides
The Court did not put the blame on one side only. According to it, the purpose of the guidelines framed for such marches had been breached by both the petitioner and the State. It had expected the parties to cooperate, the Court said, but that faith had turned out to be entirely misplaced.
ALSO READ: Karnataka High Court Allows RSS Route March in Chittapur on November 16
Earlier rounds
RSS route marches have reached the High Court almost every year since 2022. On 10 February 2023, a Division Bench set aside a condition confining the marches to enclosed premises and told the police to allow them on public roads. On 11 April 2023, a Supreme Court bench of Justice V Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal dismissed the State’s appeals against that ruling. The High Court has since laid down guidelines for how such marches are to be conducted, the same guidelines the Court on Thursday said both sides had breached.
The positions, and what comes next
The petitioner relies on the right to assemble peaceably under Article 19 and on the earlier rulings that directed the police to grant permission subject to reasonable conditions. The State maintains that its refusal rested on the venue and on local concerns along the route, including the eidgah.
The hearing was adjourned to Friday, 16 October 2026, when the DGP’s instructions are to be placed before the Court. All of the Court’s remarks on Thursday were oral observations made during the hearing. They are not findings, and the Court has not yet ruled on whether the refusal of permission was lawful.
Case Title: VG Jagadeesan v. The State
Case No.: WP Crl No. 2790 of 2026
Bench: Justice V Lakshminarayanan, Madras High Court
Date of Hearing: 15 October 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate NL Rajah for the petitioner; Advocate General Vijaya Narayan for the State