The Madras High Court has drawn a line between criticising a judgment and attacking the judge who wrote it, directing the Tamil Nadu Police to refuse permission for protests targeting judges, to end any permitted assembly that turns into a personal attack on a sitting judge, and to keep watch on digital platforms for online content that crosses into criminal intimidation of judges.
Chennai: In a ruling on protests targeting judges, the Madras High Court on Friday, October 30, 2026, held that citizens remain free to disagree with a judgment, but that coordinated campaigns using abusive, defamatory or caste-based language against the judge who wrote it are not protected speech. Disposing of a public interest litigation, it directed the State police and district administrations to deny permission for any public gathering or march aimed at personally targeting, defaming or intimidating a sitting judge, while refusing to ban peaceful public discussion of court rulings altogether [R. Karthikeyan v. Union of India and Others].
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan delivered the judgment, having reserved its verdict on October 27.
Where the Court drew the line
The Bench said the case required a balance between the individual right to free speech and the institutional right to judicial independence, which the Supreme Court has held to be part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
“Citizens have an undeniable right to disagree with a judgment. However, there is a clear legal line between criticizing 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. They violate the reasonable restrictions set out under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of the India.”
The police, the Court recorded, had not been passive: they had refused permission for demonstrations in busy commercial areas and registered cases when groups defied those orders. It found, however, that ordinary local measures were not always enough for coordinated campaigns run across physical and digital spaces.
“Law enforcement agencies must act quickly and uniformly across all districts to ensure personal vitriol is not allowed to masquerade as legitimate public protest.”
Discussion of rulings stays open
“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. However, the State remains under a strict obligation to ensure that its public spaces and digital networks are not used to threaten the safety and integrity of our judicial institutions.”
The four directions
The Bench disposed of the writ petition without costs and directed:
“(i) The State police and District Administration shall continue to evaluate all applications for public meetings, marches or protests regarding judicial matters on a strict case-by-case basis, using their powers under the BNSS and local Police Acts.
(ii) 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.
(iii) The Cyber Crime Division of the State Police is directed to maintain active surveillance over digital platforms, ensuring that online content does not transgress into criminal intimidation directed against sitting judges, and initiate swift action in accordance with law against any infractions.
(iv) The police shall complete their investigation into the criminal cases, viz., 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.”
The judgment that set off the petition
The petition traces back to a judgment of June 25, 2026, delivered by a Division Bench at the Madurai Bench, which declared G.O.(Ms.) No.31 of March 9, 2024 unconstitutional. The High Court had then held that a person cannot claim backward class benefits purely by virtue of religious conversion.
According to the petitioner, R. Karthikeyan, several organisations, including the Tamil Nadu Thowheed Jamaath (TNTJ) and the Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK), who were arrayed as the fourth and fifth respondents, then held protests across the State. The petition alleged that posters, rallies and social media videos went beyond criticism of the ruling, personally targeted a sitting judge of the Bench and used abusive language and caste-based remarks. These remain the petitioner’s allegations.
He sought a writ of mandamus directing the Union, the State and the Director General of Police to take preventive and penal measures against organised campaigns, processions, speeches and social media publications that scandalise or intimidate the judiciary or personally target any sitting judge.
The State’s reply
The State Public Prosecutor, appearing for the Director General of Police, argued that the petition rested on broad generalisations and lacked dates, police jurisdictions, names of offenders or specific complaints. The State said it does not tolerate unlawful personal attacks on judges. When the TNTJ tried to hold an unpermitted protest in Madurai on June 29, 2026, permission was refused, and FIR No.152 of 2026 was registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita when protesters assembled anyway. FIR No.158 of 2026 was registered against TMMK members over a similar incident on July 3, 2026.
The State also contended that Sections 148 and 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and Section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act already give officials enough power, and that a blanket ban on assemblies relating to court decisions would violate constitutional freedoms.
In reply, the petitioner’s counsel argued that persons visible at the front of the protests in photographs and videos had not been named as accused in the FIRs, which, he said, showed that the police had failed to act against those actually responsible.
Names absent from the FIRs
Rejecting the res ipsa loquitur argument, the Bench held that an FIR is not meant to be an encyclopaedia of the incident or an exhaustive roster of every offender. The registration of the two FIRs showed that the criminal law had been set in motion, and the identity and culpability of individuals seen in the footage were matters for investigation. The absence of names at that preliminary stage, the Court said, did not imply institutional passivity, so long as the investigation was carried to its logical conclusion fairly and thoroughly.
Both FIRs remain under investigation. The allegations in them are untested, the Court expressed no view on the guilt of any person, and everyone named in them is presumed innocent unless proved guilty.
ALSO READ: Madras High Court Orders Seizure of Book Allegedly Defaming Justice G R Swaminathan
What the judgment changes for the police
The ruling draws a working line for police across Tamil Nadu: protests about a judgment remain a matter for case-by-case assessment, but gatherings aimed at the person of a judge are to be refused, and permitted events that turn into personal attacks are to be stopped. By declining a blanket ban, the Bench kept room for criticism of judicial outcomes while asking the police to act uniformly across districts. The direction for active surveillance of digital platforms is tied to criminal intimidation of sitting judges and to action in accordance with law, which will shape how that power is exercised.
Case Title: R. Karthikeyan v. Union of India and Others, W.P. No.30622 of 2026
Bench: Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, Madras High Court
Date of Judgment: October 30, 2026 (reserved on October 27, 2026)
Appearances: Advocate Rajendran Raghavan for the petitioner; State Public Prosecutor R. John Sathyan, assisted by Government Advocate N. Palanivel, for the Director General of Police; Government Advocate S. Ganesh Babu for the State; G. Babu for the Union of India