Madras HC Bars Permits For Gatherings Aimed At Personal Attacks On Sitting Judges After Protests Over Ruling

Following a Division Bench judgment declaring G.O.(Ms.) No. 31 unconstitutional, protests were held across Tamil Nadu.

The petitioner alleged that some protests and related online material went beyond criticism of the judgment and involved abusive, defamatory and caste-based attacks targeting a sitting judge.

He sought directions for preventive and penal action, investigation of cognizable offences and guidelines regulating protests concerning judicial proceedings.

The State submitted that it had denied permission for certain protests and registered FIR No. 152 of 2026 and FIR No. 158 of 2026; it also argued that the petition lacked particulars and that existing statutory powers were sufficient.

The petitioner further contended that persons visible in protest footage had not been named as accused in the FIRs.

Article 19(1)(a) protects citizens’ freedom to express disagreement with judicial decisions, subject to the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2); the Court distinguished criticism of a legal conclusion from abusive, defamatory or intimidating personal attacks on a judge.

Judicial independence is a basic feature of the Constitution, and coordinated intimidation of judges because of their decisions threatens the administration of justice.

The Court referred to Sections 148 and 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and Section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act as sources of public-order powers, to be exercised through case-by-case assessment rather than a blanket prohibition on assemblies.

It also held that an FIR need not exhaustively name every alleged offender at the outset; identification and culpability may be determined during investigation.

The Court held that peaceful disagreement with a judgment remains protected, but personal abuse, defamation or intimidation directed at a sitting judge falls outside that protection.

It found that the State had taken some action by refusing permissions and registering FIRs, so the omission of particular individuals from the FIRs did not, by itself, establish police inaction; their roles were matters for investigation.

At the same time, the scale of the alleged protests and online activity required continued, coordinated enforcement.

A blanket ban would impermissibly restrict democratic expression, so the Court adopted a case-by-case approach and directed action against gatherings that personally target judges.

No order as to costs was made, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.