The Madras High Court on Friday directed the Tamil Nadu Police to deny permission for public protests aimed at personally targeting, defaming or intimidating sitting judges, and to immediately stop any gathering that turns into a personal attack against a judge. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan passed the ruling in the public interest litigation filed by R Karthikeyan, reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 521.
Source: Bar and Bench
"No permission shall be granted for any public gathering or march that aims to personally target, defame or intimidate a sitting judge. If a permitted assembly turns into a personal attack, the officers concerned shall end the event immediately and take appropriate legal action," the court ordered.
The Bench held that citizens have an undeniable right to disagree with a judgment, but there is a clear legal line between criticising a legal conclusion and attacking the individual judge who authored it. Coordinated actions that use abusive, defamatory or caste-based language to attack a sitting judge do not fall under protected free speech and violate the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, it said, adding that personal intimidation strikes at judicial independence, which the Supreme Court has held is part of the Constitution's basic structure.
At the same time, the court rejected a blanket ban. "A blanket order completely banning all public discussions or peaceful gatherings concerning court rulings would go too far. It would infringe upon legitimate democratic expression," it held. Police and district administrations must instead examine applications for meetings, marches and protests on judicial matters case by case, under the BNSS and local police laws, and act quickly and uniformly across all districts so that, in the court's words, personal vitriol is not allowed to masquerade as legitimate public protest.
The Cyber Crime Division of the state police was directed to maintain active surveillance over digital platforms, ensuring that online content does not transgress into criminal intimidation directed against sitting judges, and to initiate swift action in accordance with law against any infractions. The police were also directed to complete the investigations into FIR Nos. 152 and 158 of 2026, registered at the B-5 Southgate Police Station in connection with the protests, fairly, thoroughly and expeditiously.
The PIL followed protests against a June 25 judgment of the court's Madurai Bench, delivered by Justices GR Swaminathan and PB Balaji in W.P.(MD) No. 7217 of 2022, which struck down a Tamil Nadu government order that had allowed persons from Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes, Denotified Communities and Scheduled Castes to be treated as Backward Class Muslims after converting to Islam. That judgment was later upheld by the Supreme Court. The petitioner alleged that organisations including the Tamil Nadu Thowheed Jamaath (TNTJ) and the Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK) subsequently organised protests across the state that went beyond criticism of the judgment, with posters, rallies and social media videos allegedly carrying abusive language and caste-based remarks against a judge on the Bench.
The state government told the court that police had already acted: permission for a TNTJ protest in Madurai on June 29 had been refused, and FIRs were registered when protesters assembled regardless, including against TMMK members after a similar incident on July 3. The Bench noted the police had not remained entirely passive, but held that the scale of the physical and digital campaigns showed ordinary local measures might not always be adequate. It also rejected the argument that the FIRs were deficient merely because some individuals visible in protest photographs and videos were not named at the outset, saying identification of specific persons is a matter for the investigation.
Advocate Rajendran Raghavan appeared for the petitioner, State Public Prosecutor John Sathyan, assisted by Government Advocate N Palanivel, represented the Director General of Police, Government Advocate S Ganesh Babu appeared for the state and Dr G Babu for the Union government. The court disposed of the PIL with the directions above and made no order as to costs.