Why does the RSS route march denial come round every year? The Madras High Court put that question to Tamil Nadu police, orally remarking that the government appeared to be seeing citizens as enemies.
Chennai: Hearing a petition by a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) on Wednesday, 14 October 2026, the Madras High Court pressed the Tamil Nadu police to explain why permission for the organisation’s route marches is refused. The petitioner wants the police directed to consider his representation and allow a uniformed route march, followed by a public meeting, on 18 October, 25 October, 1 November or any other date [VG Jagadeesan v. The State].
The petition was heard by Justice V Lakshminarayanan sitting singly. Senior Advocate NL Rajah appeared for the petitioner and Advocate General Vijaya Narayan for the State, while State Public Prosecutor John Sathyan figured in the Court’s directions.
A refusal every year, or a question of venue
The petitioner, VG Jagadeesan, wants the march to be in uniform and led by a musical band. Senior Advocate NL Rajah told the Court that permission is denied to the organisation every year, that the march is meant to mark its founding day, which coincides with Vijayadashami, and that the police routinely cite law and order concerns.
Advocate General Vijaya Narayan gave a different reason. According to the State, permission was refused because the organisers wanted to hold the march and public meeting at a place that is not a notified public meeting site. On that stand, the refusal turned on the venue and not on who the organisers are.
What the judge said aloud
Justice Lakshminarayanan asked why the Tamil Nadu police deny permission year after year when such marches take place even in Jammu and Kashmir. He indicated that the difficulty went beyond a single organisation, remarking orally:
“This government is against any procession… denying permission for Dravidar Kazhagam and for RSS… seeing citizens as enemies.”
These were oral observations made during the hearing. They are not findings of the court, they form no part of a written order, and the court has not ruled on whether the refusal was lawful.
ALSO READ: Karnataka High Court Allows RSS Route March in Chittapur on November 16
No final order: a meeting, then a report
The court did not decide the petition. It asked counsel for the petitioner to sit down with State Public Prosecutor John Sathyan and work out how the event could be held peacefully, with five representatives from the petitioner’s side taking part. The matter goes to Thursday, 15 October 2026, when the State is to place a report on how a peaceful procession could be permitted.
The litigation so far
RSS route marches in Tamil Nadu have gone to the High Court almost every year since 2022. In that round permission was first refused on law and order grounds, and a single judge later allowed marches with conditions, among them confinement to enclosed premises in some areas. On 10 February 2023 a Division Bench set aside the restriction to enclosed premises and told the police to permit marches on public roads. A Supreme Court bench of Justice V Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal dismissed the State’s appeals on 11 April 2023.
The High Court has since laid down detailed guidelines for how such marches are to be conducted. The organisers still had to come back in 2024, and in September that year the court directed them to give the police the details of the Vijayadashami marches. On an earlier occasion the High Court had also said orally that the police must protect both the organisers and the public, and should not invent new reasons to refuse permission. The present petition is the latest in this sequence.
Where the two sides stand
The petitioner relies on the right to assemble peaceably and on the earlier rulings directing the police to grant permission subject to reasonable conditions. The State says the refusal rested on the venue not being a notified public meeting site. The State’s report will be before the court on Thursday.
Case Title: VG Jagadeesan v. The State
Case No.: WP Crl No. 2790 of 2026
Bench: Justice V Lakshminarayanan
Date of Hearing: 14 October 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate NL Rajah for the petitioner; Advocate General Vijaya Narayan for the State