The Madras High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to a DMK councillor booked over a speech against Chief Minister Vijay, and the price of her liberty is not her silence: the Court recorded her own promise of restraint, refused to make it a condition, and reminded the police that they serve the State and not the party in power.
Chennai: Declining to gag a politician as the price of liberty, the Madras High Court has granted anticipatory bail to D Sudha, a Greater Chennai Corporation councillor and DMK women’s wing functionary, in a case registered by the B-2 Esplanade Police over her alleged derogatory remarks about Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and TVK leader Vijay [D Sudha v. State].
The petition, filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was allowed by Justice N Ramesh by an order dated November 2, 2026.
A promise, not a condition
Relying on Sachin Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Mohammed Zubair, the Court declined to impose a condition barring Sudha from speaking against the Chief Minister:
“A court that gags a politician as the price of liberty does indirectly what Article 19 forbids the State to do directly. The petitioner’s volunteered undertaking to exercise restraint is recorded; it is her promise, not my condition.”
Offensive, but political speech
The remarks, the Court found, were aimed at an individual political leader and not at any community, and they did not incite violence. It disapproved of the language used but held that constitutional protection extends to offensive political speech:
“The constitutional protection of speech is tested when speech is ugly, not when it is polite; it is never the decorous critic whom power is tempted to arrest. Those who hold high office in a republic hold it on the term that they will be criticised, lampooned and, not rarely, abused. The office is not so fragile that a ward councillor’s invective at a party meeting can shake it.”
The speech, the complaint and the FIR
The case, Crime No. 157 of 2026, arises from a speech Sudha made at a DMK function in Chennai on October 7, in which she allegedly used derogatory terms for the Chief Minister. A TVK functionary, who was not present at the meeting, filed a complaint 12 days later. The FIR alleges offences relating to obscenity, intentional insult and statements promoting enmity.
Sudha told the Court that the remarks were made in an emotional state, and she tendered an apology on affidavit. Her counsel argued that the speech, however intemperate, was political speech aimed at the head of a rival party, named no community, incited no crime and needed no custodial interrogation.
Opposing the plea, the State argued that the speech could provoke hostility between rival parties and disturb public peace.
The allegations remain untested. The Court decided only the question of pre-arrest bail and the presumption of innocence applies.
The police and the party in power
On how the FIR came to be registered, the Court observed: “Twelve days of complete public silence were followed by registration within the hour of a complaint by a functionary of the ruling party who was not present at the meeting.” There was nothing on record to show the police acted at the TVK’s behest, it said, but the police must be mindful of how their actions look to citizens.
“An even hand between the ruling party and its opponents is not a courtesy the police extend; it is a condition of their constitutional legitimacy. The police serve the State, which endures, and not the party in government, which changes.”
Referring to a recent case of a Chennai economist who was picked up over a social media post allegedly from a fake account and released the same day after the Chief Minister intervened, the Court remarked: “An apology, however high its source, is not accountability, and a remedy that depends on the Chief Minister’s personal intervention is not a remedy at all.”
Terms of release
Sudha is to be released on bail in the event of arrest, or on her appearance within 15 days before the 7th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, on executing a bond of Rs 25,000 with two sureties for a like sum. If she fails to surrender within 15 days, the order stands cancelled. She has also been directed to report before the police daily until further orders.
Why the order matters
The order applies the settled view that criminal law cannot be set in motion simply because political speech offends a person in public office. Remarks aimed at an individual leader, without targeting a community or inciting violence, sit differently from speech that promotes enmity between groups.
It also restates the limits on bail conditions. A condition must secure the accused’s presence, protect evidence or prevent repetition of the offence, and must be reasonable and proportionate. A blanket restraint on speech meets none of those aims and cannot be imposed in the name of bail.
Case Title: D Sudha v. State represented by the Inspector of Police, B-2 Esplanade Police Station, Chennai [Crl.O.P. No. 30986 of 2026]
Bench: Justice N Ramesh, Madras High Court
Date of Order: November 2, 2026
For the Petitioner: Advocate A Damodaran for Advocate A Thanasekar
For the State: State Public Prosecutor R John Sathyan, assisted by Government Advocate (Crl. side) R Rajasekaran