Advocates can protest against arrests but can't prevent police from producing accused in court: Madras HC

The Madras High Court recently observed that while advocates are entitled to peacefully protest against the arrest of fellow lawyers, they cannot prevent the police from producing the arrested persons before a court for remand [Ajith Kumar Vs State].

Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy made the observation while considering a petition filed by ten lawyers.

They sought the quashing of a criminal case filed against them for protests against the arrest of two fellow lawyers and for allegedly obstructing the police from producing the arrested persons before a trial court.

The protesting lawyers claimed that the two advocates were arbitrarily arrested in a drug case over an incident from two years ago.

The Court on August 5 observed that while peaceful protests against the arrest did not warrant the registration of a criminal case, obstructing police from producing an accused for remand would amount to an offence.

The Court underscored that if lawyers believe that police excesses have been committed, the appropriate course is to appear before the court where the arrested persons are produced and oppose their remand.

“When the Police wanted to produce the two Advocates, namely, Dinesh and Neeraj, before the Court of law, even if the excess was committed against the Advocates, the lawful way is to appear before the Court before which they are produced, voice their objection, appeal to the learned Presiding Officer not to accept the remand, and seek lawful remedies,” the Court said.

The Court eventually agreed to quash the first information report (FIR) filed against the ten lawyers (petitioners), provided they filed an affidavit apologising for obstructing the police.

The case concerned a lawyers' protest held inside the Madras High Court premises in November 2023. The protests took place after the Sathankadu Police apprehended two advocates, Dinesh and Neeraj, in connection with a case and brought them to be produced before a special court under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

According to the prosecution, the petitioners protested inside the court premises and prevented the police from producing the two lawyers for remand despite warnings.

After examining video footage, the High Court's Security Committee concluded that the conduct obstructed public servants from discharging their duties. On its directions, the Registrar (Administration) lodged a complaint, following which an FIR was registered in 2025 under Sections 186, 152 and 225 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The petitioners argued that they were merely exercising their democratic right to peacefully protest against what they claimed was the false implication of two fellow lawyers.

Justice Chakravarthy acknowledged that advocates could peacefully protest to demonstrate solidarity and unity. However, he found that the protest in the present case had gone beyond that.

The Court consequently found that, prima facie, the petitioners' alleged conduct attracted the offence under Section 225 of the IPC, which deals with resistance or obstruction to the lawful apprehension or custody of another person.

However, the Court ultimately agreed to quash the entire FIR considering the peculiar circumstances, including that the police themselves subsequently released the two advocates on bail, and that no final report had been filed in their case.

The relief was made conditional on each petitioner filing an affidavit within ten working days expressing regret for their “extreme behaviour” during the November 2023 incident.

If any petitioner fails to file the affidavit, the Court directed that the prosecution against such person may continue, albeit only for the offence under Section 225 IPC.

Advocate RC Paul Kanagaraj appeared for the petitioners.

Government Advocate (Criminal Side) M Mohamed Riyaz represented the State.

[Read Judgment]