Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 30 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: R. Karthikeyan (resident of Chennai) filed a public interest litigation under Article 226 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Union of India, the State of Tamil Nadu, and the Director General of Police to take preventive and punitive action against organized campaigns, public meetings, processions, demonstrations, speeches, and social media publications that scandalise, intimidate, or undermine the authority of the judiciary or personally target any sitting judge.
  • Respondents: 1) Union of India (Ministry of Home Affairs), 2) State of Tamil Nadu (Home Department), 3) Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, 4) Tamil Nadu Thowheed Jamaath (represented by President R. Abdul Karim), 5) Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam.
  • Background: The dispute stems from a judgment dated 25 June 2026 (Madurai Bench, W.P.(MD) No.7217 of 2022) that declared G.O.(Ms.) No.31 dated 09 March 2024 unconstitutional for allowing backward‑class benefits on the basis of religious conversion. Following that judgment, TNTJ and TMMK organised statewide protests that, according to the petitioner, escalated into personal, hostile, and defamatory campaigns against a sitting judge of the Division Bench.
  • Allegations: Posters, rallies, and videos used abusive and caste‑based language; police allegedly failed to prevent or curb the assemblies; the petitioner argued that the law‑enforcement response was inadequate and that specific individuals visible in the media evidence were not named in the FIRs, constituting res ipsa loquitur.
  • State’s response: The State Public Prosecutor contended that the petition lacked specific details; police denied permission for an unpermitted protest in Madurai on 29 June 2026 and registered FIR No.152 of 2026 under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita; a similar FIR No.158 of 2026 was registered against members of TMMK on 3 July 2026. The State cited powers under Sections 148 and 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and Section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act.
  • Court’s observations: The Court emphasized the need to balance Article 19(1)(a) freedom of speech with Article 19(2) reasonable restrictions to protect judicial independence; noted that coordinated abusive actions against a sitting judge are not protected speech; recognised police actions but highlighted that regular measures may be insufficient for coordinated digital and physical campaigns; rejected the notion of a blanket ban on all public discussions concerning court rulings.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is dismissed.
  • The Court issues the following directives:

1. State police and District Administration shall evaluate applications for public meetings, marches, or protests concerning judicial matters on a strict case‑by‑case basis under the BNSS and local Police Acts.

2. 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, officers shall immediately end the event and take appropriate legal action.

3. The Cyber Crime Division of the State Police shall maintain active surveillance over digital platforms to prevent criminal intimidation of sitting judges and initiate swift action against infractions.

4. Police shall complete investigations into FIR No.152 of 2026 and FIR No.158 of 2026 at the B‑5 Southgate Police Station in a fair, thorough, and expeditious manner.

  • No order as to costs; all connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Topics: Judicial Independence; Freedom of Speech; Public Order