The Madras High Court has observed that while advocates are entitled to stage peaceful protests, they cannot prevent the police from producing arrested persons before a court of law. Delivering the ruling, Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy conditionally quashed an FIR registered against ten advocates over a 2023 protest inside the Madras High Court campus. The Court held that the criminal proceedings would stand quashed only if the petitioners file affidavits expressing regret for their conduct within the stipulated time, noting that although the protest had exceeded permissible limits, the peculiar facts of the case warranted such relief.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a protest held on 2 November 2023, when police brought two advocates, arrested in another criminal case, to be produced before the Special NDPS Court. According to the FIR, the petitioners, all practicing advocates, protested inside the court premises and allegedly prevented the police from producing the two accused before the court despite repeated warnings. The complaint was lodged by the Registrar (Administration) of the Madras High Court following recommendations made by the High Court Security Committee after reviewing video footage of the incident.
The petitioners argued that the demonstration was peaceful and intended only to express solidarity with fellow members of the Bar. They also contended that the FIR could not have been registered for the offence relating to obstruction of a public servant without following the statutory procedure prescribed by law.
Court's Observations
Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy agreed that the FIR could not continue for the offence under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code, observing that the law requires a complaint before the competent court before such prosecution can begin.
The Court also found that the allegations did not satisfy the ingredients of the offence relating to obstructing police engaged in dispersing an unlawful assembly, since the FIR did not allege that the officers performing that specific duty had been threatened or assaulted.
However, regarding the allegation of obstructing the lawful production of arrested persons before the court, the Bench observed that there was sufficient prima facie material to examine the offence under Section 225 IPC.
As the Court put it,
“a protest in a democratic and peaceful manner can also be done to express solidarity and unity.”
But it added that the material on record indicated that the protest had gone beyond peaceful expression by preventing the advocates from being produced before the court.
Court's Decision
Even after finding prima facie material for one of the alleged offences, the High Court took note of several unusual circumstances. It observed that the police themselves later released the two advocates on station bail, no final report had been filed for years, and the FIR was registered only in 2025 in relation to a 2023 incident. Considering these factors, the Court decided that the proceedings could be brought to an end if the petitioners expressed regret for their conduct.
Accordingly, the Court directed that the FIR in Crime No.11 of 2025 shall stand quashed once the petitioners file affidavits expressing regret within ten working days.
If any petitioner fails to do so, criminal proceedings against that individual may continue for the offence under Section 225 IPC.
Case Details
Case Title: Ajith Kumar S & Ors. v. State Rep. by its Inspector of Police & Anr.
Case Number: Crl.O.P. No.29355 of 2025
Judge: Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy
Decision Date: 05 August 2026
