Madras High Court orders police to deny permission for protests targeting judges

The Madras High Court on Friday directed the Tamil Nadu Police to deny permission for public protests aimed at personally targeting, defaming or intimidating sitting judges and to immediately stop any gathering that turns into a personal attack against a judge [Karthikeyan Vs Union of India].

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan passed the ruling.

"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," the Court has ordered.

It held that while citizens have the right to criticise judicial decisions, coordinated campaigns involving abusive, defamatory or caste-based attacks against judges are not protected by the constitutional guarantee of free speech.

"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," the Court observed.

The Court has also issued directions for the police to actively monitor online content on digital spaces to ensure that it does not transform into criminal intimidation targetted at sitting judges.

"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," the Court said.

The ruling came in a public interest litigation filed by R Karthikeyan following protests against a June 25 judgment of the Madurai Bench passed by a Bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and PB Balaji.

By that judgment, Court struck down aTamil Nadu government order that allowed persons from Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes, Denotified Communities and Scheduled Castes to be treated as Backward Class Muslims after converting to Islam

The judgment was later upheld by the Supreme Court as well.

According to the petitioner, organisations including the Tamil Nadu Thowheed Jamaath (TNTJ) and Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK) subsequently organised protests across the State.

It was alleged that the protests went beyond legitimate criticism of the judgment and involved hostile campaigns personally targeting a sitting judge who was part of the High Court Bench.

The petitioner claimed that posters, rallies and social media videos contained abusive language and caste-based remarks intended to undermine public confidence in the judiciary.

He urged the Court to order strict action against organised campaigns, public meeting, processions, demonstrations, speeches, social media publications or other activities that undermine the judiciary or personally target sitting judges.

The Tamil Nadu government, meanwhile, contended that police authorities had already taken action against the recent unlawful demonstrations.

The State informed the Court that permission for a protest organised by TNTJ in Madurai on June 29 had been refused. When protesters nevertheless assembled, the police registered an FIR. Another FIR was registered against members of TMMK following a similar incident on July 3.

The Court acknowledged these steps but observed that ordinary local measures might be insufficient to address coordinated campaigns across physical and digital platforms.

"Law enforcement agencies must act quickly and uniformly across all districts to ensure personal vitriol is not allowed to masquerade as legitimate public protest," the Court said.

However, the Bench rejected the suggestion that all public discussions or peaceful gatherings concerning judicial decisions should be prohibited.

"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," it held.

The Court consequently directed the State Police and district administrations to consider applications for protests concerning judicial matters on a case-by-case basis.

It further directed that no permission should be granted for gatherings intended to personally target, defame or intimidate sitting judges. Police officers must immediately terminate permitted assemblies that turn into personal attacks on judges and initiate appropriate legal action.

It further ordered the police to complete investigations into the two FIRs registered in connection with the recent protests fairly, thoroughly and expeditiously.

The petition was accordingly closed.

Advocate Rajendran Raghavan appeared for the petitioner.

State Public Prosecutor John Sathyan, assisted by Government Advocate N Palanivel, represented the Director General of Police.

Government Advocate S Ganesh Babu appeared for the State, while G Babu appeared for the Union government.

[Read Judgment]