The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu Police and District Administration not to grant permission for public meetings, marches or protests intended to personally target, defame or intimidate sitting judges. The Court has also ordered the Cyber Crime Division to actively monitor digital platforms and take action against online content amounting to criminal intimidation of judges, as reported in 24Law.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan made the observations while hearing a public interest litigation seeking action against organised campaigns, demonstrations and online publications targeting sitting judges and undermining the authority of the judiciary.
The Bench emphasised that citizens have the right to criticise judicial decisions, but such criticism cannot extend to personal attacks against the judges who deliver them. It observed, “Coordinated actions that use abusive, defamatory or caste-based language to attack a sitting judge do not fall under protected free speech. They violate the reasonable restrictions set out under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.”
The PIL also sought criminal action against office-bearers and members of Tamil Nadu Thowheed Jamaath (TNTJ) and Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK), who were accused of organising protests against a sitting judge.
The controversy followed a June 25, 2026 judgment by a Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of the High Court. The judgment struck down a Government Order concerning the grant of backward class benefits following religious conversion, holding that a person could not claim such benefits merely by converting to another religion.
Following the judgment, several organisations, including TNTJ and TMMK, allegedly organised protests across Tamil Nadu. The petitioner contended that these demonstrations went beyond criticism of the verdict and turned into personalised campaigns against one of the judges who delivered it.
The petition alleged that posters, public rallies and social media videos contained abusive language and caste-based remarks aimed at undermining public confidence in the judiciary. It also accused the State of failing to prevent such targeted demonstrations and the circulation of objectionable online content.
The State, however, told the Court that it had taken action against unlawful demonstrations. It submitted that permission for a protest proposed in Madurai on June 29, 2026, had been denied and that FIR No. 152 of 2026 was registered after protesters assembled despite the restriction. Another FIR, No. 158 of 2026, was registered against members of the fifth respondent organisation over a similar incident on 3 July 2026.
The State further submitted that Sections 148 and 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act provided adequate powers to deal with public disorder.
The petitioner pointed out that some individuals prominently seen in photographs and videos of the protests had not been named in the FIRs. The Court rejected the argument that this alone demonstrated police inaction. It observed that an FIR need not contain the names of every person involved at the initial stage and that identifying individuals and determining their culpability based on digital evidence were matters for investigation.
The Bench also underscored that judicial independence is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Judges must be able to decide cases solely on the basis of law and facts, without fear of personal abuse, threats or coordinated intimidation over their judgments.
At the same time, the Court clarified that its directions should not be interpreted as a blanket ban on public discussions or peaceful gatherings concerning judicial decisions. Such a restriction would interfere with legitimate democratic expression. However, the State has an obligation to ensure that public spaces and digital platforms are not used to threaten judges or undermine judicial institutions.
The Court accordingly directed the police and District Administration to examine applications for public meetings, marches and protests concerning judicial matters on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with the BNSS and applicable Police Acts.
It further ordered that permission must not be granted for gatherings intended to personally target, defame or intimidate sitting judges. If an assembly that has been granted permission turns into a personal attack against a judge, authorities must immediately terminate the event and initiate appropriate legal action.
The Cyber Crime Division was also directed to maintain active surveillance of digital platforms and take swift action, in accordance with law, against online content amounting to criminal intimidation of sitting judges.
The Bench additionally directed the police to complete the investigations in FIR Nos. 152 and 158 of 2026 fairly, thoroughly and expeditiously.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
