The Supreme Court heard the state government's petition against the RSS route march in Tamil Nadu on Friday. Sr. Adv. Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Tamil Nadu government in this case, said in the court that the state government cannot allow the march in 6 districts as there is a threat of PFI and bomb blasts in these areas. On the other hand, the Supreme Court bench was surprised to see senior advocate Maneka Guruswamy appearing in the court on behalf of the RSS.

Senior advocates Menaka Guruswamy and Mahesh Jethmalani appeared for the RSS on Friday before the Supreme Court on a petition filed against the Tamil Nadu government's denial of permission to the RSS to conduct a route march in the state. At the end of the hearing, when Jethmalani told the court that he was appearing with Guruswamy, the bench said, "I thought you were appearing for the other side." To which Maneka Guruswamy replied with a smile, "My Lord, the Constitution demands everything from us."

At the same time, the Tamil Nadu government told the Supreme Court that it was not completely opposed to allowing the proposed route march and public meetings of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh across the state on March 5. However, citing the intelligence report, the state government also said that this program cannot be allowed to be organized in every nook and corner of the state. The state government sought some time from the court to prepare a list of routes for the march.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court said that one is the language of democracy and the other is the language of power. Which language you speak depends on where you are. In view of the Supreme Court's stand, the RSS agreed to postpone the route march in Tamil Nadu on 5th March. On the other hand, the Tamil Nadu government sought time from the Supreme Court that they would find a solution in this matter, on what conditions the permission for the route march should be given. Along with this, he will also talk to RSS about the route march. On behalf of RSS, Mahesh Jethmalani said that we have already taken out processions in the areas mentioned by the state government. Also said that at present there will be no route march to be held on March 5.

Accepting the request of senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the state government, a bench of Justice V Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mittal adjourned the hearing till March 17, 2023.

SLP (C) No..  4163/2023
K. PHANINDRA REDDY, I.A.S. & ORS.                 
                                VERSUS
G. SUBRAMANIAN                                     

Appearances of the advocates:-

Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv.
Mr. D Bharat Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Joydip Roy, Adv.
Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv.
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Praneet Pranav, Adv.
Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Adv.
Mr. Ravi Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Rabu Manohar, Adv.
Mr. P M Ravikumar, Adv.
Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Adv.
Mr. Pushpinder Nanda, Adv.
Mr. G Karthikeyan, Adv.
Ms. Mugdha Pande, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Awasthi, Adv.
Mr. Vikas Shukla, Adv.
Mr. Utkarsh Pratap, Adv.
Mr. Mukta Halbe, Adv.
Mr. Lavkesh Bhambhani, Adv.
Mr. Shreehari Borikar, Adv.
Mr. T Gopal, Adv.
Mr. Parameshwar, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Vivekananthan, Adv.
Mr. Tathagat Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Nring Chamwibo Zeliang, Adv.
Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, AOR
Mr. Shubhendu Anand, Adv. 
Mr. Ayush Anand, Adv. 
Mr. Prashant Rawat, Adv. 
Mr. Pankaj Singhal, Adv. 
Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv. 
Ms. Shreya Bhojnagarwala, Adv. 
Ms. Priya Mishra, Adv. 
Mr. Shivam Singania, Adv. 
Mr. Bhaskar Gowtham Tadimalla, Adv. 
Mr. Aman Shukla, Adv.
Mr. Chandrakant Reddy, Adv. 
Mr. Raghav Pandey, Adv. 
Ms. Rekha Pandey, Adv. 
Mr. Gobind Kumar, Adv. 
Ms. Rashmi Singhania, Adv. 
Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela, Adv.