In a recent development, the Supreme Court of India expressed its disinclination to entertain appeals against the Madras High Court’s orders, which allowed the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to conduct route marches in Tamil Nadu. The apex court questioned the Tamil Nadu Government’s decision not to file an intra-court appeal before a division bench of the Madras High Court, challenging the single bench’s directive.
Also read- Madras High Court Issues Notice Over Alleged Contempt In RSS Route March Case (lawchakra.in)
The bench, consisting of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta, inquired of the State,
“if the single judge has committed an error, there is a forum available in the High Court itself, can the division bench not correct the order of the single judge? why is the division bench provided for?”
This query came in response to two separate orders passed by different benches of the Madras High Court, which the State of Tamil Nadu and the Director General of Police in Chennai appealed.
The Supreme Court has adjourned the matter to November 6, 2023, to consider the maintainability of the appeals, asking the state to furnish details about the case before the High Court, including the roster of the judge and the High Court rules on intra-court appeals.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the State of Tamil Nadu, indicated the High Court’s ongoing deliberation on whether to permit processions. Tamil Nadu Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohammed Jinnah informed the Court that as per the Letters of Patent rules, there was no provision of intra-court appeal in criminal matters. However, the Supreme Court sought clarification on whether the case was heard by a criminal or civil bench, with Justice Datta responding,
“As per the roster set by the Chief Justice, was the matter was heard by a bench taking up criminal writs or civil writs? We will only go by the roster. If the matter has been heard as a civil writ petition, where is the question of the bar?”
Justice Surya Kant added,
“The nature of relief is essentially civil in nature,”
while Sibal agreed to provide the relevant orders and the roster on the next hearing date.
The Madras High Court had previously criticized the Tamil Nadu government for its failure to comply with court orders regarding the RSS march. Justice G Jayachandran noted,
“The tenure of the rejection order certainly not in tune with Secular or democratic way of governance. It is neither in obedience or compliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dictum. By citing the existence of the structures, place of worship of other religion or office of some organizations, which do not share the same ideology of RSS, the request of RSS to conduct procession and public meeting is rejected. This order is contrary to the principle of Secularism which is the foundation of our Constitution of India.”
The High Court had also recorded the RSS counsel’s submission that the organization would maintain discipline, stating,
“They will show to the court that they are the most disciplined organization to the core. They will maintain the same throughout the events.”
The court emphasized the importance of this undertaking, warning that no RSS members must speak ill of any caste or religion during the march and imposed several conditions on the march, including a limit of 500 participants and a prohibition on bringing any stick, lathi, or weapon.
This case has brought to the forefront the procedural intricacies of the Indian judicial system and the ongoing debate over the right to assembly and expression versus public order and safety. The Supreme Court’s decision to adjourn the case reflects its intent to ensure that due process is followed within the existing legal framework.