Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) contested a single bench's ruling of "restrictions on route march" before the Division Bench of Madras High Court, contending that the public opinion cannot take the face of the evidence.

"The court had looked at the intelligence report and observed that there was nothing in it. Yet, it went on to impose conditions. Public Opinion and Press Reports cannot take the face of evidence," the party's counsel argued.

The arguments were presented before Justices Sathya Narayana Prasad and R. Mahadevan. The State claimed that it had not yet received all of the materials in the letter patent appeal, so the court postponed the matter until January 5.

The sole justification given by the State for refusing permission for the route march, according to senior counsel G Rajagopal who represented the RSS, was a concern for law and order. It did draw attention to the fact that every other State had given consent, leaving Tamil Nadu as the only State where the organisation was unable to conduct the route march.

By arguing that the single judge had noted that the State government had not engaged in any willful disobedience by refusing or amending permission to the RSS, Additional Public Prosecutor Raj Tilak representing the State challenged the maintainability of the letter patent appeal. Tilak also claimed that no case for contempt of court was established.

The Court then requested permission from the organisation to reapply for permission to perform the route march on a different day. Senior Counsel NL Rajah for the RSS responded that while they are willing to do so, the State would again reject their application "citing Covid in China or war in Taiwan". 

Case Title: G Subramanian v. K Phanindra Reddy IAS (batch cases)
Case No: LPA 6 of 2022