Plea to re-impose ban on civil servants, govt officials to join RSS, its affiliates

Counterview Desk 

Open letter by members of advocacy group Peoples’ Commission on Public Sector and Public Services (PCPSPS), endorsed by concerned citizens, to the President of India for upholding democratic integrity in the civil services:

***

We believe that it is desirable to re-impose the recently revoked ban on the members of the senior civil service from being also formal members of the RSS. In support of our position we would like to bring to your notice the following:

1. The administration is led by the civil services personnel, to further the policies of the government of the day, provided these are consistent with the Constitution of the country, and have their basis in the law, and have the sanction by the legislature. In order to ensure these policies, programmes, measures, interpretations of the law (such as laying out the rules under various laws and provisions), forming and managing organisations for the pursuit of various goals including those of legitimate policy, it is important that the administration is neutral to all its citizens, and appears as such irrespective of the personnel’s own political leanings and position. This cannot happen unless the senior administrators and those in sensitive positions do not engender partisan actions and bias in administration.  This follows logically from the design of a democracy. And Indian democracy, as one of the great working democracies, has this provision of not allowing its civil servants (in many sensitive positions, and in authority) to be members of political parties.

2. Civil servants are not elected, and so should not have the power to determine policy, independently of the elected. This is also an important aspect of democracy.

3. If senior administrators are allowed to be members of political parties, they could bias the very working of those entities as much as they could the very orientation of the entity in its working.

4. India being still in the developmental stage has functionally a large role for the state, which means senior administrators and public enterprises have to intervene in society and markets. Partisan bias is clearly an anathema then in a democracy. (See Box 1: India’s Democracy)

5. All the great democracies have provisions that are functionally in line with the requirement stated above (1, 2, and 3 above). But the form of law and action may vary somewhat. Thus, both the UK and the US have provisions that restrict the civil service. India too has such requirement which is what would be violated if the ban on RSS members from being officers/sensitive staff of the government is removed. (See Box 2: The Civil Service in the UK and US)

6. The RSS is de-facto a political entity, a political super-party that is able to hold together its many political entities to the coherent pursuit of its agenda that includes “Hindutva”. (See Box 3: The RSS and its Origins).  The well-established judicial approach of “penetrating the veil (of the form) of an organisation or of a legal person” to expose its real function and identity is important.  That approach would tell us that form apart, the RSS is a political party (or super-party). Thus, consider the “Vision and Mission” on the website of the RSS. We draw your attention specifically to:

i.   Involvement in Political Fields: "Sangh-inspired institutions and movements today form a strong presence in social, cultural, educational, labor, developmental, political, and other fields of nationalist endeavor." This statement highlights the RSS's involvement in various fields, explicitly mentioning "political" as one of them, suggesting their active role and influence in politics.

ii.   Political Movements and Concerns: "Sangh initiated movements—be they social-reformist or anti-secessionist—evoke ready response and approbation from the common multitudes as well as from vast numbers of elite of different shades." The reference to "anti-secessionist" movements indicates a direct involvement in political activities, particularly those dealing with national integrity and political unity.

iii.   Influence in the Political Sphere: "Dr. Keshav Baliram Hegdewar (1889-1940) ... anticipated the need for strengthening the foundations of the Hindu society and for preparing it for challenges on social, economic, cultural, religious, philosophical, and political planes." This shows that the founder of the RSS envisioned addressing political challenges, reinforcing the organization's political ambitions.

iv.   Political Relevance and Advocacy: "Sangh’s alone has been the voice of genuine patriotic concern amidst the cacophonous politically inspired shibboleths of undefined secularism, etc." This suggests that the RSS positions itself against what it perceives as misguided political ideologies, advocating for its vision of nationalism, which inherently involves political stances. Its antipathy towards socialists and communists makes it an extreme right-wing organization with broad political objectives. The RSS’s journal and the speeches of its leaders are not confined to special interests but are broad and political. 

v.   Formation of Political Parties and Influence: "With the end of the British Raj, Bharat became a democratic republic with a constitution of its own when the need for a strong political alternative to the ruling party with unalloyed nationalism arose. The Sangh, though it preferred to remain apolitical, was well aware of its commitment to social transformation, including in the political field, based on Hindu values." The RSS acknowledges its influence in the political field, demonstrating its involvement in shaping political discourse and policies based on its ideological values.

vi.   Direct Political Action: "A few senior Sangh functionaries ... decided to form the Bhartiya Jan Sangh in 1951 under the presidentship of Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee." The formation of a political party, Bharatiya Jan Sangh (which later evolved into the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), directly ties the RSS to political activities and aspirations.

7. We could also consider the many actions of the RSS in recent times as well as in the past to support its parties, including the BJP. Today it is the working force of the BJP. It’s cadres, since 1991 if not earlier, have always been deployed to benefit the Jan Sangh, and now the BJP its successor. Many RSS personnel have participated on the side of the BJP (often without another representative of the BJP) in national debates especially on TV. Its leaders and cadres have participated in movements that have created for the  BJP its political capital in Hindutva, through such movements as the Ram Janmabhoomi -Babri Masjid agitations and participation in very localised conflicts and struggles to further the core agenda of the BJP. Indeed, the core agenda of the RSS is Hindutva and it sees the BJP as an important instrumentality, but with little separation de-facto between the two. 

8. Many leaders of the BJP are typically drawn from the RSS, and no political leader in the BJP can survive without the concurrence of the RSS. The BJP must be seen as an extended body of the RSS in reality, whatever are the legal forms of these organisations.

9. RSS ideologues, are often appointed to positons of importance (board of directors, “independent directors” etc.)  in the governance of public educational and research and public enterprises, whenever not explicitly barred by law, by the BJP when in power.

10. The agenda of the RSS is also not always in harmony with the Constitution [anti-constitutional] and no political grouping [(other than possibly the Naxalites] have an agenda that is so directly anti-constitutional.

11. The agenda of the RSS and by extension of the BJP, its instrumentality, as revealed by the public statements of these very organisations, even if their actions are ignored, reveal that they are prima facie antagonistic to important constitutional provisions of the Republic of India covering the following: 

• Equality
• Freedom of religion
• Secularism
• Rule of law and constitutionalism and institutionalism
• Fundamental and human rights
• Justice (in the modern sense)
• Judicial independence

(For details see Box 4: The Contradiction of the Hindutva Agenda of the RSS with the Constitution of India.)

12. The Constitution of India separates the state from the party, even when the party is in power.  This is sacrosanct to a democracy. One significant measure to ensure this is through the set of articles relating to the role of the Civil Services (Articles 309 to 311). Through these articles civil servants have to operate independently of political parties. Civil servants are expected to be politically neutral, and the Constitution protects them from political retribution, thus contributing to the separation of state functions from party politics. 

13. If the recently lifted ban on civil servants joining RSS is not revoked, it will set an unhealthy precedent to other political parties do likewise, allowing civil servants under their purview to join their own sister political groups, leading to a chaotic situation that cuts at the very root of India’s democratic and Constitutional values, which will not augur well for the nation.

14. Not revoking the ban on the RSS would mean that the government is acting in contradiction to important provisions in the Constitution of India.

Conclusion

Hence, the government should revoke the removal of the ban on RSS members from being officials in government, or government servants associating themselves in the activities of the RSS

Hence, the Supreme Court  should suo motu reverse the decision of the government. [Naxalites who do not believe in the Constitution are both banned and not allowed to hold positions in government.] And the President has avows to his or her ability “..[to] preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the Law..” (Article 60 of the Constitution of India).

The RSS, which is also actively opposed to certain provisions of the Constitution and is also a political party in disguise, should therefore not have its members being part of the administrative machinery of the government. 

In our considered view, the ban on government servants joining the RSS should be extended to all public functionaries. We believe that individuals entrusted with statutory responsibilities should remain completely apolitical and neutral.

[However, neither the Naxals nor the RSS should be banned outright, as that would be unconstitutional.]

Additionally, we hold that, in the interest of democracy, senior judges (both High Court and Supreme Court) should not hold party positions. We also believe that democracy in India would be strengthened if senior judges, officials, civil servants, regulators, and public enterprise managers who hold high positions or roles with significant discretion observe a cooling-off period of at least three years, after leaving their positions (whether due to retirement or otherwise), before accepting new appointments.

Otherwise, we would have already lost a great democracy, and India as we all know and love, may cease to exist. We would then have reversed perhaps humanity’s greatest political achievement of the 20th century i.e. the making of India, a country of unity in diversity that is democratic; since democracy is what makes India and holds India together, India with its humongous diversity and variety.

There have been reports of members of the higher echelons of the judiciary taking part in the activities of RSS and joining the BJP immediately upon retirement. Such association with the RSS, or for that matter, with any other body that has political connotations, affects the credibility of the judicial system. We, therefore, appeal to you to arrange for banning such association and imposing a restriction that, within three years from the date of retirement/ departure from government and its parastatals, they should not join any body that has such political connotations.

***

Box 1: India’s Democracy

The world has completely changed since the Age of Enlightenment. The following key ideas and orientations, emanating from that age, guide humanity all over the world. And India as much as the Western world, or China, or any other country or social grouping cannot but accept these. It would be entirely unethical to hold any other position:

• All humans, being moral persons, are equal. Therefore, nationalism is necessarily inclusive. (Past divisions and conflicts have to be actively forgotten, with the state playing a major role in inclusion. This is nation-building).
• Only a democracy can be ethical. *Democracy is not just “rule of the people by the people and for the people” but constitutionalism, institutionalism, and rule of law where every person is held equal under the law in both design and practice, ensuring the freedom of every person subject only to the need for the freedom of other persons. From here arise laws that restrain human behavior, as well as human rights, and habeas corpus.
• As a corollary, the autonomy of universities, think tanks, and the media follow; and the role of the state, besides governance, includes active inclusion (as in India’s Directive Principles) and tolerance for political dissent.

India becoming independent as a constitutional democracy is perhaps the greatest political achievement of the 20th century. History will vindicate this if India remains democratic and united. India’s achievements, despite some correctable flaws, are uniquely humanistic. Constitutional democracy that is based on the three principles above, have the potential to make us a great nation, drive the economic transition to a developed and modern society, and liberate us. 

Box 2: The Civil Service in the UK and USA

UK

In the UK, civil servants are generally expected to remain impartial and neutral in their roles, and they are discouraged or even barred from engaging in political activities or joining political parties, especially when in positions that involve high levels of responsibility. This principle is a cornerstone of the British Civil Service, ensuring that civil servants can serve successive governments regardless of the political party in power. The Civil Service Code lays out clear guidelines regarding political impartiality. It states that civil servants must not act in a way that is determined by party political considerations or allow personal political views to influence the decisions they make in their work. Furthermore, the code emphasizes that certain civil servants are subject to stricter rules on political activity. For example, those in senior or "sensitive" positions are prohibited from taking part in national political activities such as campaigning or running for office.

The Civil Service Management Code (Section 4.4) also details restrictions on political activity for civil servants, stating that they "must not engage in any activity that could conflict with their official duties or bring the Civil Service into disrepute." Civil servants who wish to engage in political activities must seek permission, and certain grades of civil servants are not allowed to engage in political activities at all. These rules help maintain the political neutrality that is essential to the functioning of the Civil Service. 

USA

In the United States, civil servants are similarly restricted from engaging in certain political activities to maintain impartiality and prevent conflicts of interest. The primary legislation governing these restrictions is the Hatch Act of 1939. The Hatch Act imposes strict limits on federal employees' involvement in partisan political activities, though it allows some participation in nonpartisan politics. Recently, the same outright restriction has been removed, but functionally there are many barriers against the membership of political parties. 

All political participation is subject to approval by the OSC (Office of Special Counsel). And in certain sectors, and at higher levels , and in positions that involve discretion, participation continues to be banned altogether.

According to the Hatch Act, federal employees are barred from:

• Running for partisan political office.
• Using their official authority or influence to interfere with or affect election results.
• Soliciting, accepting, or receiving political contributions, especially in connection with a political party, campaign, or partisan political group.
• While federal civil servants can join political parties as private citizens, they are discouraged from publicly engaging in partisan political activities such as organizing campaigns, making political speeches, or distributing party materials, especially while on duty or in an official capacity.

The Office of Special Counsel (OSC), which enforces the Hatch Act, explains that while federal employees are permitted to express opinions on political subjects and participate in political activities outside of work, those in certain roles or higher positions (such as those in the Senior Executive Service) face even stricter limits. The OSC's official guidelines make it clear that political impartiality is essential to ensure the civil service remains dedicated to serving the public interest rather than partisan interests.

For further reading, the Hatch Act and the OSC's guidelines are available on the Office of Special Counsel website and on official government portals.

Box 3: The RSS and Its Origins

The Rashtriya Swayam Sevak (RSS) is an organization born as a reaction to colonization. The counterpart of this reaction was the very progressive reform of society to which many Indians—Dadabhai Nowroji, Gandhi, Tagore, Naicker, Shree Narayanaguru, Rammohan Roy, Ambedkar, Nehru, Ranade,  Phule, and so many others—contributed, resulting in the modern democratic and inclusive India that we know and live in.

The RSS, while in some ways advocating the reform of Indian society, has a core orientation that is reactionary and anti-minority. Thus, the militarization of Hindu youth propagated by the RSS arose out of the false understanding that India was dominated by colonialism because of Indians being unarmed. Similarly, the value it placed on an “organization” to guide Hindus arose from the perceived “deficiency” of Hindus in not having a church or being in control of the state.

Anti-Muslimism as Essence

The RSS, while focused on Hindus and their organization, came under the influence of the Hindu Mahasabha, which became explicitly communal from about 1910 under the leadership of Veer Savarkar with its Hindutva ideology. Savarkar, a great patriot until his incarceration in the Andamans, was subject to inhuman torture by the British, but the actual torture was carried out by Muslim Pathan guards. The British had a particular knack for using one group—caste, language group, or religion—to divide and rule over India, and this practice of using Muslim Pathans guards over political prisoners was one element of their approach. Unfortunately, Veer Savarkar was psychologically broken and, since his incarceration, saw Muslims as the ‘natural’ enemy of Hindus.  This is the core of his thesis of Hindutva. Since then, Savarkar lived only to hate Muslims and to organize Hindus against Muslims, even if it meant collaborating with the British.

The original anti-Muslimism of the RSS was strengthened with the agenda that, over the longer term, the only choice available to Muslims (and Christian minorities) was to reconvert or accept their second-class status and not full citizenship, which would be available only to Hindus (including Jains, Sikhs, and Buddhists). This aspect of the agenda of both the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha was strengthened after independence with the creation of Pakistan.

Hindutva

The essence of Hindutva can be stated as:

• Religion as a driver of human identity, and in the face of conflict between religious and national identity, the religious identity would hold strong and the national give way.
• Only the followers of religions that are born in India can, therefore, be completely loyal to India considered as a geographical entity.
• Hence, only Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs (HJBS), besides Indian animists, can be considered as true Indians.
• To  the ideologues of Hindutva, true independence is only when India establishes Hindu Rashtra, i.e. where all non-Hindus - Muslims and Christians-  whose religions arose outside, are evicted, or become subservient relative to the citizens who belong to the HBJS religions. As such it does not recognize the rights of minorities to be free and equal citizens.

The first two premises are completely wrong in the modern world. There is ample evidence of both kinds: some HJBS have been disloyal to India as a modern nation, and many Muslims and Christians have been patriots.

The Hindutva position glosses over the deep retardation of Indian society that caste brought about over many centuries: hardly any innovation, genetic weaknesses due to endogamy and the high levels of homozygosity that it has brought about,  fighting for the nation being limited to a caste (which allowed many invasions to take place); inhuman treatment of the lower castes; a belief that man was unequal, very low levels of learning and literacy, little marriage of thought with production technology.

Most importantly, it is evident that no nation whose core identity is based on religion has successfully modernized. The Western world experienced a prolonged battle between the church and the state for over 600 years, which ultimately saw the state prevail. This victory was a prerequisite for modernization and the Age of Enlightenment. In contrast, the primary burden of many countries in West Asia, the Middle East, and Pakistan is that they have chosen to define their identity and nationhood in religious terms. This choice has condemned them to remain underdeveloped, regardless of any other advantages they may possess.

The RSS’s Beliefs

The contrast between the RSS’s beliefs and modern democracy cannot be sharper. Thus:

• Hindu Rashtra, by definition cannot be inclusive nor can it be democratic in the modern sense. Therefore, the RSS is, by definition, a organization that does not accept modern inclusive India.
• Hindutva takes the essential form of antagonism (hate) against minorities, especially Muslims, because they are the largest minority, and many invaders in historic time professed that religion. [The reality, though, is that many others who invaded—Yavanas, Yuechi, Shakas, Hunas, etc which happened earlier—merged into Indian caste society with the invaders occupying relatively upper caste positions). The Muslim invaders, though, with their monotheism, retained their identity as a different religion. But the invaders, including Muslim, have become part and parcel of Indian society. The Indo-Saracenic tradition in architecture, in the arts and crafts, and in so many aspects of life created Indian society as it is today. What we recognize as Indian culture and being is an amalgam and mutual co-existence of pre-Islamic Indian (Buddhist, Jain, and the many Hindu orientations, animist tradition) with the Islamic and Christian, and since colonization, of an orientation informed by the “Age of Enlightenment” and its universalization. Moreover, newer Islamic traditions emerged in India, and syncretism too found expression. *Hinduism itself was immensely influenced by Islam with both reactionary trends and trends that involved accommodation and adaptation. Thus, many anti-caste movements, including those that ultimately morphed into sects or altogether new religions, emerged as well. There is nothing Hindu about Hindutva; only the hate for Muslims defines Hindutva].
• The RSS believes that antagonism is the only way to "unite Hindus," given the existing caste divisions. This indirectly suggests that the RSS has a pessimistic view of caste ever being overcome or of any meaningful positive reform taking place in Hindu society. As a result, they see creating a common "other" as the only way to unite Hindus.
• Similarly, the RSS does not believe in a settling date before which our divisions and contestations are forgotten and underplayed in the task of building the nation. Thus, in its antagonism with Islam, it actively encourages the reopening of past conflicts, some of which go back more than a millennia. *Conflicts over mosques that may have been the sites for temples are its favorite ways to further its agenda of hating Muslims with the hope that this would unite Hindus. [All successful modern nations have a forgetfulness of the past conflicts that have the potential to divide, and look forward to democracy, humanism, and progress as values to which the state and people commit themselves. Thus, the French actively forget the past conflicts between Franks and Anglos, the Catholics and Protestants; the US, the conflict with the Native Americans (being officially apologetic about their decimation)].
• The RSS also does not exclude violence in the pursuit of its agenda. [It has provided support to the Hindu Mahasabha and other groups that include violence as part of their action set. For example, Savarkar argued for violence in the fight against Muslims even after India had become independent and a constitutional democracy that, besides the channel of elections, clearly provides for peaceful methods for protests and the expression of political aims].
• The RSS also does not recognize India as being politically independent. It hankers for an “independence” when the country is free from Islam and its impact. [The idea is so utterly inane and destructive of the country as is the belief that removing the weft of a cloth would allow the cloth to exist].
• It believes that a “religion”—what it calls the “Hindu Political”—which is under construction can and should guide the country and its state. [Even if India had only one “religion,” the very idea of religion guiding the construction of the state and society is antithetical to everything modern and progressive].

The above positions are negative and hurtful not only to minorities but to the vast majority of Hindus as well since hate cannot sustain a society, and as it unfolds it can be self-destructive. There ought to be modernism and democracy in its true sense for people to be free and prosper.

However, Indian democracy has to be tolerant and allow all kinds of ideologies to exist, including those who do not believe in democracy. This would mean that Indian democracy cannot and should not ban the RSS as a political party.

Box 4: The Contradictions of the Hindutva Agenda of the RSS with the Constitution of India. 

The idea of Hindu Rashtra and the agenda of the RSS are also in deep contradiction with the Constitution of India. This is obvious but needs reiteration by reference to the ideologues and leaders of the RSS.

Equality

The Constitution of India provides for (1) under Article 14: Equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. (2) Under Article 15: Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.

• In his “Bunch of Thoughts”,  M. S. Golwalkar, a key RSS ideologue, says that the true identity of an Indian is tied to being Hindu. He wrote that Muslims and Christians may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu Nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment—not even citizen’s rights.  K. S. Sudarshan, former RSS Chief, argued that the Indian nation is rooted in Hindu culture, and while other religions are welcome, they should align with the Hindu cultural ethos.  He in his discussions with religious leaders of minorities mentioned that they “should earn the goodwill of the majority”, perspective that contrasts with the constitutional guarantee of equality for all. This only reiterated the long held position of the RSS that minorities need to conform to the majority’s (Hindu) cultural norms.
• In contrast, the RSS’s advocacy for unity and inclusion among Hindus focuses more on social harmony across different castes and communities within the broader Hindu identity, with non-Hindu populations being less than equal. The RSS has explicitly avoided the idea of absolute equality in terms of universal rights and individual liberties even among Hindus, leave aside among all Indians. 
• The idea that India is inherently a Hindu nation with a common Hindu culture contradicts the constitutional principle that no citizen should face discrimination based on religion. The RSS’s approach suggests that being Hindu is normative, potentially marginalizing non-Hindu citizens.

Freedom of Religion

The Constitution of India provides for (1) under Article 25: Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion. And (2) under Article 26: Freedom to manage religious affairs.

• In contrast, M. S. Golwalkar in his “Bunch of Thoughts” (op.cit.) was critical of conversions, particularly those involving Hindus converting to other religions. He viewed conversions as a threat to national unity and integrity. Golwalkar's writings express a clear opposition to the right to propagate religion, which is constitutionally guaranteed. His call for a ban on conversions suggests restricting this fundamental right. Similarly, Mohan Bhagwat, Current RSS Chief, in his various speeches has reiterated the need for laws to prevent "forced" or "induced" conversions, which he argues disrupt social harmony. 
• Although framed as opposition to "forced" conversions, the emphasis on restricting conversion activities reflects a broader resistance to religious propagation, a constitutionally protected right.

Thus, while the Constitution guarantees the freedom to propagate one’s religion, including the right to convert, the RSS's opposition to conversions and advocacy for anti-conversion laws suggest a desire to limit this freedom. This stance is at odds with the Constitution’s commitment to religious freedom.

Secularism

The Constitution of India provides for (1) a secular and socialist republic as in the Preamble: “India is a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic.” (2) Article 27 prohibits the use of state funds for the promotion of any religion.

• M. S. Golwalkar, in his “Bunch of Thoughts”, criticized secularism as a "borrowed concept" and contended that India should be a Hindu Rashtra. Golwalkar's rejection of secularism reflects the RSS's vision for a Hindu Rashtra where Hindu culture forms the basis of national identity and governance.
• Mohan Bhagwat’s Speech on Hindu Rashtra frequently articulated that while the RSS respects all religions, India’s identity is fundamentally Hindu. This perspective suggests a preference for Hindu cultural hegemony, which could challenge the secular nature of the state as mandated by the Constitution.
• The Constitution’s commitment to secularism requires the state to treat all religions equally and not endorse any particular religion. The RSS’s concept of a Hindu Rashtra, where Hindu culture is the dominant national identity, is fundamentally at odds with the constitutional vision of secularism.

Rule of Law and Constitutionalism

The Constitution of India (1) in Article 13 states that the state cannot make laws that contravene fundamental rights. Similarly, Article 32 provides for the Right to constitutional remedies for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

• From the RSS’s Vision and Mission Statements (referred to earlier): “Expressed in the simplest terms, the ideal of the Sangh is to carry the nation to the pinnacle of glory, through organising the entire society and ensuring protection of Hindu Dharma. Having identified this goal, the Sangh created a method of work in consonance with that ideal. Decades of functioning have confirmed that this is the most effective way of organising the society.”.  This vision reflects a desire to align laws and governance with Hindu values, potentially at the expense of constitutional norms.
• The Constitution establishes the rule of law and constitutionalism, emphasizing adherence to its provisions as the supreme legal framework. The RSS’s view that the Constitution should reflect Hindu cultural values suggests a willingness to override constitutional principles to impose a specific cultural identity.

Fundamental and Human Rights

(1) Article 19 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, assembly, association, movement, residence, and profession. Similarly, (2) Article 21 the Right to life and personal liberty.

• Golwalkar and other RSS leaders have often criticized free speech when it is used to critique Hindu culture or advocate for minority rights in ways that conflict with Hindutva ideology. They have often stated that there should be restrictions on expressions that are anti-national or against the cultural ethos of the majority. 
• This position implies a conditional approach to free speech, prioritizing cultural and national unity over the unfettered right to expression. The issue of constraints on free speech can be debated. However, to constrain the same in terms of whether or not the aggrieved group is the minority or majority is a clear way of being anti-democratic and purely majoritarian.

The Constitution guarantees broad freedoms of speech and expression without imposing restrictions based on national or cultural unity. The RSS's stance on limiting expressions deemed anti-national or culturally divisive contradicts this constitutional protection.

Justice

The Constitution of India in (1) Article 39A: Directs the state to provide free legal aid to ensure justice is not denied to any citizen due to economic or other disabilities. (2) And in Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty.

RSS Stance on Minority Rights and Justice: 

The RSS has often been critical of sensitivity to minorities and has instead sought to bring them to accept the practices of the majority, even when these are intrusive on public spaces. But more importantly, in glorifying Sanatan Dharma, it has not made its stand clear on the ancient discrimination that is caste and the jati system. It has never been supportive of Hindu reform that seeks to actively hasten the decline of caste in India. In contending that Sanatan Dharma should rule India’s justice system, it is arguing for a retreat from the modern idea of justice, which is enshrined in the Constitution.

Judicial Independence

Article 50 of the Directive Principles of State Policy mandates the separation of the judiciary from the executive. This ensures that the judiciary remains free from the influence of political parties, preventing political control over the justice system. Over its evolution, this provision has been strengthened, and Indian democracy has marched ahead. In contrast, the RSS/BJP, by their very anti-institutional approach, their promotion of judges who are Hindutva-oriented, and the tilt of these judges in basing their judgments on “Hindu” and “Islamic” principles, not only undermines the institutional basis of governance but also its secular fabric.