Karnataka's Risky Anti-RSS Gambit: The Forgotten Legal Verdict That Could Haunt Congress

The political landscape in Karnataka is once again heating up, fueled by what many observers describe as the Congress government's assertive, if not aggressive, stance against the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). This renewed confrontation, marked by controversial police decisions and escalating rhetoric, is eerily reminiscent of past skirmishes – a history lesson that the current administration appears either to have forgotten or wilfully ignored, much to its potential peril.

At the heart of the current tension is the state police’s refusal to grant permission for a planned RSS route march in Bengaluru, a decision that has ignited a firestorm of criticism and drawn sharp parallels to previous attempts to curtail the organization's activities.

For those familiar with India's legal and political history, this move triggers a powerful sense of déjà vu, immediately bringing to mind a landmark Supreme Court verdict from 1980 that robustly affirmed the RSS’s right to assemble and conduct its activities.

The 1980 judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices P.N.

Bhagwati and A.P. Sen, was a pivotal moment. It arose from a challenge against orders issued by the Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh governments prohibiting RSS members from carrying out physical training (shakha) and holding route marches in public places. The Supreme Court unequivocally struck down these bans, declaring that the RSS's drills were not inherently disruptive and that the organization held the fundamental right to assemble peacefully.

The Court emphasized that unless there was a clear and present danger to public order, such blanket prohibitions were unconstitutional. This verdict essentially validated the RSS’s operational methods and established a crucial legal precedent.

Fast forward to today, and Karnataka's actions seem to fly in the face of this very ruling.

While the state's High Court initially upheld the police's refusal to intervene in the local authorities' order, this is merely an interim step. The core constitutional question—whether the state can restrict the RSS's fundamental rights without concrete evidence of impending public disorder—remains very much alive.

Legal experts are quick to point out that the 1980 Supreme Court judgment provides a robust framework that any subsequent state action would struggle to circumvent.

It's worth noting that the RSS has faced bans multiple times throughout its history, most famously during the Emergency (1975-77) and after Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination.

However, time and again, these prohibitions have either been lifted or overturned by judicial intervention, underscoring the organization's resilient legal standing. The courts have consistently held that mere ideological opposition is not a sufficient ground to suppress a lawful organization, especially one whose activities, while sometimes controversial, do not inherently threaten national security or public order.

The Congress, therefore, finds itself on thin ice.

Its current strategy in Karnataka could be perceived as a politically motivated attempt to target a rival ideological group, potentially inviting another protracted legal battle that could ultimately reaffirm the RSS’s rights once more. Such an outcome would not only be a significant political embarrassment but also a costly lesson in legal history.

As the situation unfolds, all eyes will be on the Karnataka government to see if it chooses to heed the lessons of the past or risk another judicial rebuke in its pursuit of an "anti-RSS" agenda.