The Tamil Nadu government contended that petitions filed by RSS were not maintainable, since the single-judge had already held that in refusing or modifying permission to the RSS, the State government had not committed any wilful disobedience, and no case for contempt of court was made out.
Representing the State, Senior Advocate NR Elango argued that it was the duty of the State to maintain law and order and that included taking preventive steps. Elango argued that following the November 4 order, the RSS itself had called off the route march.
“We did not say that we will not allow. They (RSS) only said that they will not carry out. They said they will carry out after due deliberation. What due deliberation? When to carry out? That they have not stated anything yet,” he said.
He further said that the State did not oppose the beliefs of any group or religion, but was merely keeping in mind the interest and the safety of the society at large.
“The interest of the society is more important than their interest,” Elango added.
Source: Barandbench
