R.KARTHIKEYAN vs THE UNION OF INDIA

2026:MHC:4375
W.P.No.30622 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 27.10.2026
DELIVERED ON : 30.10.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.P. No.30622 of 2026
CNR:{ HCMA011621652026 }

and W.M.P.Nos.33648, 33645

and 33646 of 2026
R.Karthikeyan
S/o.K.P.Ratnasabapathy,
15, Police Commissioner Office Road,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Union of India
Rep. by its Secretary
Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.
2.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary, Home Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
3.The Director General of Police
No.601, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.
______________
Page 1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 12:24:18 pm )

2026:MHC:4375
W.P.No.30622 of 2026
4.Tamil Nadu Thowheed Jamaath (TNTJ)
Rep. by its President, R.Abdul Karim,
No.30, Aranmanaikaaran Street,
Mannady, Chennai-600 001.
5.Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam
(TMMK), No.7, Vada Maraicoir Street
(Vadamaraikair Street), Behind Harbour
Telephone Exchange Office, Mannady,
Chennai-600 001.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3
to take effective preventive and penal measures against organised
campaigns, public meeting, processions, demonstrations, speeches,
social media publications or other activities scandalising, intimidating
or undermining the authority of the judiciary or personally targeting
any sitting Judge of this Hon’ble court or any Constitutional Court; to
register appropriate criminal cases and conduct a fair and expeditious
investigation into all cognizable offences disclosed in such incidents; to
take appropriate action in accordance with law against respondents 4
and 5, their office bearers, members, affiliates and all other persons
found responsible, directly or indirectly, for organising, instigating,
participating in, financing or facilitating such unlawful activities, to
frame appropriate guidelines governing the grant of permission for
public meetings, processions and demonstrations relating to judicial
proceedings or personally targeting Constitutional courts and sitting
Judges.
______________
Page 2 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 12:24:18 pm )

2026:MHC:4375
W.P.No.30622 of 2026
For Petitioner(s): Mr.Rajendran Raghavan
For Respondent(s):Dr.G.Babu, CGSPC
for R1
Mr.S.Ganesh Babu,
Govt Advocate
for R2
Mr.John Sathyan,
State Public Prosecutor,
asst by Mr.N.Palanivel,
Govt Advocate (Crl Side)
for R3
ORDER
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
This public interest litigation raises a vital question about
institutional balance. It requires us to decide where the right to
voice public dissent ends, and where the duty to protect the
independence of our courts begins.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus
to compel the State administration and law enforcement agencies to
______________
Page 3 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 12:24:18 pm )

2026:MHC:4375
W.P.No.30622 of 2026
take preventive and punitive action against organized public
campaigns that target sitting judges.
3. The dispute traces back to a judgment delivered on
25.06.2026, by a Division Bench of this Court sitting at the Madurai
Bench in W.P.(MD) No.7217 of 2022, whereby G.O.(Ms.) No.31,
dated 09.03.2024, issued by the Backward Classes, Most Backward
Classes and Minorities Welfare Department, was declared as
unconstitutional and it was held that a person cannot claim
backward class benefits purely by virtue of religious conversion,
noting that such a practice is inconsistent with both constitutional
principles and Islamic theology.
4. Following the aforesaid judicial declaration by the Madurai
Bench, several organizations, including the fourth and fifth
respondents, launched wide-ranging public protests across the
State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner asserts that these actions
quickly moved past normal public criticism of a legal ruling. Instead,
they turned into personalized, hostile and defamatory campaigns
directed at one of the sitting members of the Division Bench.
______________
Page 4 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 12:24:18 pm )

2026:MHC:4375
W.P.No.30622 of 2026
Posters were displayed, public rallies were organized and videos
were distributed on social media networks. According to the
petitioner, these displays used abusive language and caste-based
remarks designed to undermine public confidence in the
administration of justice.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended
that:
(i) Freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of
the Constitution of India protects fair, reasoned
criticism of legal rulings. However, it does not protect
deliberate personal attacks, intimidation or attempts
to lower the authority of the bench.
(ii) The State has a constitutional duty to maintain
an environment where Judges and Judicial Officers
can perform their work without fear, favour, or
external pressure.
(iii) Local police authorities failed to prevent these
highly targeted public assemblies or restrict the
spread of objectionable material online. This inaction
______________
Page 5 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 12:24:18 pm )

2026:MHC:4375
W.P.No.30622 of 2026
has emboldened lawbreakers and threatened public
order.
(iv) The Court must issue systemic guidelines to
regulate public meetings concerning active legal
proceedings, ensuring digital and physical evidence is
preserved to hold offenders accountable.
6. Learned State Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
third respondent contended that:
(i) The petition relies on broad generalizations. It
lacks crucial details for individual occurrences, such
as exact dates, specific police jurisdictions, names of
offenders, or specific formal complaints.
(ii) The State does not tolerate unlawful personal
attacks against Judges. Law enforcement authorities
have actively exercised their statutory powers. When
the fourth respondent attempted to hold an
unpermitted protest in Madurai on 29.06.2026, the
police denied permission. When protestors
assembled anyway, the police registered FIR No.152
______________
Page 6 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 12:24:18 pm )

2026:MHC:4375
W.P.No.30622 of 2026
of 2026 under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Similarly, FIR No.158 of 2026 was registered against
members of the fifth respondent for a similar
violation on 03.07.2026.
(iii) The current legal framework under Sections 148
and 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
alongside Section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act,
gives local officials ample power to handle public
disorder. Blanket orders banning all assemblies
related to court decisions would violate constitutional
freedoms and ignore necessary case-by-case
assessments.
7. Refuting the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the individuals prominently visible in the
forefront of the protests within the circulated photographic and
video evidence have not been arrayed as accused in the First
Information Reports (FIRs) registered by the State Police. This
omission, according to him, makes it a case of res ipsa loquitur
______________
Page 7 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 12:24:18 pm )

2026:MHC:4375
W.P.No.30622 of 2026
that the law enforcement authorities have failed to take genuine
and effective action against the actual persons responsible.
8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions
advanced and perused the documents on record.
9. The case at hand requires us to strike a careful balance
between two fundamental constitutional values, to wit, the
individual right to free speech and the institutional right to judicial
independence.
10. True judicial independence means judges must be free to
decide cases based solely on the law and the facts before them. The
Supreme Court of India has reiterated that an independent judiciary
is a part of the basic structure of our Constitution. If judges are
subjected to personal abuse, hostile threats or coordinated
intimidation because of their judicial decisions, it will strike at the
root of the legal system.
______________
Page 8 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 12:24:18 pm )

2026:MHC:4375
W.P.No.30622 of 2026
11. 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.
12. The records show that the State police did not remain
entirely passive. They denied permissions for demonstrations in
busy commercial areas and registered criminal cases when groups
defied those orders. Yet, the widespread scale of these protests
shows that regular local measures are not always enough to handle
coordinated digital and physical campaigns. Law enforcement
agencies must act quickly and uniformly across all districts to
ensure personal vitriol is not allowed to masquerade as legitimate
public protest.
13. Apropos the contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner pertaining to the exclusion of specific individuals visible in
______________
Page 9 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 12:24:18 pm )

2026:MHC:4375
W.P.No.30622 of 2026
media footage from the array of accused in the FIRs, it is well-
settled that a FIR is not intended to be an encyclopaedia of the
entire incident or an exhaustive roster of every individual offender
at the very threshold. The registration of FIR No.152 of 2026 and
FIR No.158 of 2026 establishes that criminal law has been duly set
in motion. The precise identification and culpability of specific front-
runners captured in digital evidence are matters strictly falling
within the domain of factual verification during the statutory
investigation. Therefore, the mere absence of individual names at
the preliminary stage does not attract the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur to imply institutional passivity, so long as the ongoing
investigative process is carried to its logical conclusion in a fair and
thorough manner.
14. 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.
______________
Page 10 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 12:24:18 pm )

2026:MHC:4375
W.P.No.30622 of 2026
15. We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition with the
following directives:
(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.
______________
Page 11 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 12:24:18 pm )

2026:MHC:4375
W.P.No.30622 of 2026
(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.
There shall be no order as to costs. All connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)
30.10.2026
Index : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
sasi
______________
Page 12 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 12:24:18 pm )

2026:MHC:4375
W.P.No.30622 of 2026
To:
1. The Secretary, Union of India
Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.
2.The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu
Home Department, Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
3.The Director General of Police
No.601, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.
______________
Page 13 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 12:24:18 pm )

2026:MHC:4375
W.P.No.30622 of 2026
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.
(sasi)
W.P. No.30622 of 2026

30.10.2026
______________
Page 14 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 12:24:18 pm )