Hindu Vivek Kendra
Truth Triumphs (What high courts say on RSS)
Ed. Ram Mohan 
Suruchi Sahitya Publication

There could be nothing better than the considered pronouncements of the highest judiciaries of the land in exposing the outrageous falsehoods, -canards, allegations and mudslunging of the lowest order being repeatedly indulged in by the Govt. -against the RSS. High Court after High Court in different states have quashed the illegal malafide orders of suspension or dismissal issued by the Govt. against the RSS workers in the govt. service. The top insinuations of the RSS being 'subversive', 'violent' 'secret', 'communal', 'anti Muslim', 'political' and so on, have all been subjected to impartial judicial scrutiny & found to be entirely baseless. As many as ten High Courts Judgements-Indore (1955), Patna (1961), Bombay (1962), Allahabad (1963), Jodhpur (1965), Banglore (1966), Chandigarh (1967), Ahmedabad (1970) and Allahabad (1971) have given identical verdicts nailing the charges levelled by the Government against the RSS.

High courts on RSS 

It is important to note that the action sought to be taken against the respondent is not any disciplinary action on the ground of his present involvement in political activity after entering the service of the Government, contrary to some Service Conduct Rule. It is further to be noted that it is not alleged that the respondent ever participated in any illegal, vicious or subversive activity. There is no hint that the respondent was or is a perpetrator of violent deeds, or that he exhorted anyone to commit violent deeds. There is no reference to any addiction to violence or vice or any incident involving violence, vice or other crime. All that is said is that before he was absorbed in Government service, he had taken part in some 'RSS or Jan Sangh activities'. What those activities were has never been disclosed. Neither the RSS nor the Jan Sangh is alleged to be -engaged in any subversive or other illegal activity; nor are the organisations banned. Most people, including intellectuals, may not agree with the programme and philosophy of the Jan Sangh and the RSS or, for that matter, of many other political parties and organisations of an altogether different hue. But that is irrelevant. Everyone is entitled to his thoughts and views. There are no barriers. Our Constitution guarantees that. In fact members of these organisations continue to be Members of Parliament and State Legislatures. They are heard often with respect inside and outside the Parliament.

In the course of the last year both the Central Government and the Provincial Governments have received a mass of information in regard to the objectives and activities of the R.S.S. This information does not fit in with what has been stated by you in this behalf. Indeed it would appear that the declared objectives have little to do with the real ones and with the activities carried on in various forms and ways by people associated with the R.S.S. These real objectives appear to be completely opposed to the decisions of the Indian Parliament and the provisions of the proposed Constitution of India. The activities, according to our information, are anti-national and often subversive and violent. You would appreciate, therefore, that mere assertions to the contrary do not help very much.


No less a person than the previous Sarsanghachalak of RSS, Shri M.S. Golwalkar himself was tried in a court of law by the Government for this offence. The case against him was that he had delivered a speech at Darbhanga (Bihar) which had promoted or attempted to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between Hindus and Muslims and Christians of this country.

The High Court of Bihar at Patna, (criminal) Revision No. 607 of 1959) carefully presented the RSS view point vis-a-vis Muslims and Christians, and held: analysed the entire speech in which Shri Golwalkar had said-

"...... It is submitted that the principal object of the petstioner in delivering the speech was to point out the objectives of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and to emphasise that the members of the Sangh should strengthen Hindu Culture for the advancement of the Country. In my opinion the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner are not without force.

"It is difficult to conclude from the speech read as a whole, that the intention of the speaker was either to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of the citizens of India or that the speaker had deliberately attempted to promote such feeling ... It has been submitted that section 153 A of the I.P.C. ought not to be applied to the case of an honest agitator where primary object was the redress of wrong, real or fancied, and who is not actuated with the mentality of a more mischief monger . In my opinion, in the instant case also, it is different to hold that the speaker had intended to promote feelings of hatred between different classes of citizens of India, not to speak of having delivered the speech with malicious intentions.

"In my opinion ... it must be held that the ingredients of the offence under sections 153 A of the I.P.C have not been established in this case."

The above judicial verdicts not merely up hold the absolute innocence of RSS, they also reveal the mean and jaundiced attitude of the Govt. The utterly and irresponsible way in which the various State Governments have made such serious allegations as "subversive". "secret", "anti-secular", "violent" etc. against RSS is simply breath-taking. The high Courts even in their restrained language, have described the various charges as "without foundation", "a very unsatisfactory explanation", there is no evidence", "it would not be within reason to accept", founded on irrelevant consideration "arbitary" etc.

In every case, the Government's order of suspension or dismissal of RSS workers, has been quashed and the Government was ordered to pay the costs.

That the Government is even today indulging in the same old exploded allegations against the RSS and has even banned it as 'a danger to national security', only shows to what depths of falsehood & chicanery the Govt. can descend.