Tamil Nadu has told the Madras High Court it has already begun framing a standard operating procedure, even as the Court sought the DGP’s reply on a plea for uniform safeguards governing Police Action Over Social Media Posts and political speech.
Chennai: The State told the Madras High Court on Wednesday, November 11, that it was already promulgating a standard operating procedure (SOP), as the Court issued notice to the Director General of Police on a public interest plea that seeks a Police Standing Order or circular prescribing uniform, lawful safeguards for police stations, cybercrime units and investigating officers dealing with complaints over social media posts, political criticism, satire and online speech [H. Syed Alim v. The Director General of Police].
A Division Bench of Chief Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan directed the DGP to file a reply within two weeks. The Court’s directions were procedural, and it has not ruled on the merits of the plea.
Who filed the plea
Advocate H. Syed Alim filed the petition, citing what he described as a rise in criminal complaints against citizens, journalists, political commentators, activists and social media users over criticism, satire, political opinion and dissent expressed online.
To argue that a consistent approach is needed when criminal law is invoked over political expression, he pointed to recent criminal cases registered against DMK MLA G.V. Markandayan, and DMK functionaries Anbanatham and Vinoth Suriya Kumar, over remarks made in public speeches. The allegations in those cases are yet to be tested, and those named are presumed innocent.
Allegations of mechanical arrests
According to the petitioner, the police in most such cases did not verify whether the complainant was legally aggrieved by the expression complained of, and registered cases and made arrests without examining legal maintainability. He alleged that arrest and inquiry were being used to harass those arrested, under pressure from influential politicians amid the conflict between political parties, compromising the fairness and independence of investigation.
The plea contends that such mechanical exercise of State power is arbitrary, violates Articles 14 and 21, and directly affects the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). What it seeks is a uniform procedure requiring careful scrutiny of such complaints under the applicable law before coercive action is taken, while preserving the duty of the police to register and investigate cognisable offences.
The State’s answer
Additional Public Prosecutor Arun Anbumani informed the Bench that two similar petitions were pending before a single judge. He submitted that the SOP process had already begun and that many aspects had to be considered, which would be taken into account while issuing it. The Bench asked him to set out those aspects in the reply to the present plea.
Why the hearing matters
Complaints over online posts and political speeches have become a recurring source of arrests and litigation, and courts have repeatedly stepped in case by case. The State’s statement that an SOP is already in the works, coupled with the Court’s direction to the DGP to spell out what it will cover, could shape how police in Tamil Nadu handle such complaints before any coercive step is taken.
The case also raises the balance the plea itself acknowledges: safeguarding free speech and dissent under Article 19(1)(a) without diluting the police’s duty to register and investigate cognisable offences. How that balance is struck will become clearer once the DGP’s reply is on record.
Case Title: H. Syed Alim v. The Director General of Police [WP No. 44784 of 2026]
Bench: Chief Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, Madras High Court
Date of Hearing: November 11, 2026
For the State: Additional Public Prosecutor Arun Anbumani