The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu Police to take action against public gatherings that personally target, defame or intimidate sitting judges, while protecting citizens’ constitutional right to peacefully express disagreement with judicial decisions.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan issued the directions on October 30, 2026, while disposing of a public interest litigation filed by R. Karthikeyan in R. Karthikeyan v. Union of India & Ors.
Background
The petition followed protests against a June 25, 2026, judgment delivered by a Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. That judgment had declared a government order concerning backward-class benefits unconstitutional, holding that religious conversion alone could not establish eligibility for such benefits.
According to the petitioner, subsequent protests organised by several groups went beyond criticism of the judgment and included personal attacks against a judge who was part of the Bench. He referred to posters, public rallies and social media videos allegedly containing abusive and caste-based remarks.
Karthikeyan sought directions requiring the authorities to take preventive and legal action against such activities and establish guidelines governing public demonstrations concerning judicial proceedings.
The State submitted that the police had already denied permission for certain protests and registered FIR No. 152 of 2026 and FIR No. 158 of 2026. It also opposed a blanket prohibition on gatherings concerning court decisions, arguing that such a restriction could interfere with constitutional freedoms.
The Bench emphasised that judicial independence and freedom of expression must be balanced. Citizens are entitled to criticise judicial decisions, but personal intimidation of judges raises a different legal concern.
The Court observed,
“Citizens have an undeniable right to disagree with a judgment.”
It clarified that criticism of a legal conclusion must be distinguished from coordinated personal attacks using abusive, defamatory or caste-based language.
The judges also noted that the police had taken some action, including denying permissions and registering criminal cases. The absence of particular individuals' names from the initial FIRs did not, by itself, establish police inaction. Their identification and individual responsibility were matters for investigation.
Rejecting a blanket ban on public discussions concerning court rulings, the Bench stressed that restrictions must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
The High Court directed the State Police and district administrations to assess applications for meetings, marches and protests concerning judicial matters individually. No permission should be granted for gatherings intended to personally target, defame or intimidate a sitting judge. If a permitted gathering turns into such an attack, officials must terminate it and take appropriate legal action.
The Court further directed the Cyber Crime Division to monitor digital platforms for content amounting to criminal intimidation of sitting judges and act according to law. It also ordered a fair, thorough and expeditious investigation into FIR Nos. 152 and 158 of 2026.
The writ petition was disposed of without any order as to costs.
