The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) on Friday agreed to put on hold its route marches till the next hearing i.e., 17th March,2023.
A bench comprising of Justice V Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal was hearing a petition filed by the State challenging the February 10 order, passed by a division bench of the Madras High Court which set aside the conditions imposed by the single bench for the RSS route marches.
Appearing for the state, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi asked the court to adjourn the hearing to March 17 and stated that the State will endeavour to “figure out a solution” in the meanwhile.
The senior counsel stated that the State will notify the alternate routes to the opposing party (RSS) and urged that the intended march on March 5 be postponed. “It is not that March 5 is a holy day,” Rohatgi explained.
He also remarked that the State had taken a call that in certain areas “hit by PFI, bomb blasts etc”, the march can be allowed only with limitations.
“We are not totally opposed to the request of the other side (RSS) to have route march. We said it cannot be done in an absolute fashion in every street,” he stated.
He added that as per intelligence reports it would only be fit to impose some conditions;
“We had received some intelligence reports. We have border areas where there are problems. So we told them not to do it there. In Coimbatore, for example. There were bomb explosions. PFI has been outlawed. So we suggested don’t do it in open, disturbed locations. Do in enclosed compounds,etc.”
Advocate Rohatgi further contended that the High Court’s division Bench had allowed the march to go forward as planned, and that the State Government should take care of the law and order situation.
Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani (appearing on behalf of RSS) expressed serious objections to the State’s position. He pointed out that the State had permitted protest marches by other organisations, such as the Dalit Panthers and the ruling DMK party, but that the RSS had been singled out.
Advocate Jethmalani further informed the Bench that in the places where they were permitted to march, there was no law and order concern. He also questioned the rationale of the state limiting marches by portraying the PFI as a threat.
