The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Tamil Nadu government to give permission to Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to carry out route marches on either of two dates suggested by the organisation.
The bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta refused to permit the state to limit the number of route marches by RSS in each district.
The Tamil Nadu government approached the top court against the Madras High Court orders directing the police authorities to grant permission to the RSS to carry out route marches inthe state.
The Tamil Nadu government agreed before the top court that it would allow the RSS to hold marches in various districts across the state either on November 19 or 26.
The bench also directed the RSS to submit the proposed routes to the authorities within three days and the state to take a decision on the routes by November 15.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for Tamil Nadu told the court that the route the RSS had earlier proposed for October 22 and 29, had several mosques along the way. Saying that the government does not want any clashes as the community will be celebrating on those days, Sibal said that the government is ready to give them any other dates.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, also appearing for the state, asked the court to let the government grant permission for one rally per district instead of allowing three rallies per district, with liberty to amend the route proposed by them.
The bench, however, said that the RSS has already agreed to go along the route suggested by the state police and permitting only one rally per district wouldbe ‘too much indulgence’.
The Supreme Court on Friday had questioned the maintainability of Tamil Nadu government’s pleas against decisions passed by the Madras High Court which had allowed the RSS to conduct route marches in the state. The court had asked the state government to explain as to why it did not prefer to file an intra-court available in the high court and cast doubts on the maintainability of the special leave petitions (SLP) filed before the apex court.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared on the state governmentās behalf, had requested the bench to adjourn the hearing for November 6 and had assured that he would file relevant documents to show that the pleas challenging orders of the high court were maintainable.