Supreme Court: In a batch of Special Leave Petitions filed by the State against two judgments, one by the Principal Bench of the Madras High Court dated 16-10-2023 and the other by its Madurai Bench dated 18-10-2023, whereby various writ petitions filed by the different units of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (‘RSS’) were disposed of , by directing the police authorities to permit the RSS to conduct the Route March on the prescribed dates and subject to certain conditions mentioned in the impugned judgments, the division bench of Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta, JJ. has directed the State of Tamil Nadu to submit a proposal before the Madras High Court as to how in future they will ensure that RSS is permitted to conduct the Route March without seeking intervention of the Court.
The Court noted that RSS was permitted to conduct the Route March on 22-10-2023 and 29-10-2023. The aggrieved petitioners filed these SLPs on the next day after issuance of the directions by the High Court.
The Court noted that RSS was permitted to conduct the Route March on 19-11-2023. However, as the Route March could not be permitted to be conducted on the dates fixed by the High Court vide the impugned judgments, contempt proceedings have been initiated against the State, in which the High Court on 01-11-2023 observed that a prima facie case for violating the judicial orders was made out. Hence, a Statutory Notice has been issued to the State in one of these cases.
RSS submitted that this Court may not close the contempt proceedings as the matter is between the High Court and the alleged contemnors. Further, it stated that it is being compelled to approach the High Court every time they want to conduct a peaceful and law-abiding Route March and, that too, subject to such reasonable and fair conditions as may be imposed in accordance with law.
The Court said that the authorities should in all fairness submit a proposal before the High Court as to how in future they will ensure that RSS is permitted to conduct the Route March without seeking intervention of the Court. Such a proposal may be considered by the High Court only after inviting objections/suggestions from RSS and its local units. Such a recourse is required to avoid unnecessary litigation in future.
The Bench said that the State shall be at liberty to apprise the High Court that they immediately availed their legal remedy against the directions issued by the High Court and, thereafter, have faithfully and earnestly complied with the order passed by this Court on 06-11-2023. Further, it directed the High Court to take into consideration all the subsequent events, most importantly the proposal to be submitted on behalf of the petitioners for a future course of action, and may accordingly, pass appropriate orders.
[Director General of Police v K.Chandrasekar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1580, Order dated 20-11-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner(s): Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, AAG Amit Anand Tiwari, AOR Sabarish Subramanian, Advocate C Kranthi Kumar, Advocate Devyani Gupta, Advocate Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Advocate Naman Dwivedi, Advocate Danish Saifi, Advocate Tanvi Anand, Advocate Kerthana, Senior Advocate N.R. Elango
For Respondent(s): Senior Advocate Guru Krishna Kumar, AOR Nachiketa Joshi, Advocate P.V. Yogeswaran, Advocate Santosh Kumar, Advocate Ayush Anand, Advocate Vishnukant, Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, Advocate Praneet Pranav, Advocate Alabhya Dhamija, Advocate Tadimalla Bhaskar Gowtham, Advocate Rahul Tanwani, Advocate Harshita Raghuvanshi, Advocate T Gopal, Advocate Amit Sharma, Advocate Aishani Narain, AOR Siddhartha Sinha
