‘A blanket order would go too far’: Madras high court refuses to restrict protests against court rulings

The court said authorities must assess applications seeking permission for meetings, marches or protests relating to judicial matters on a “case-by-case basis.”

The Madras high court has refused to restrict public protests against court rulings and emphasised that citizens have an undeniable right to disagree with a judgment, underscoring citizens' right to “question and peacefully protest” against judicial decisions.

However, the court directed the state and police authorities in Tamil Nadu to “deny” permission to any gathering aimed at “personally targeting a sitting judge.” (HT File)

However, the court directed the state and police authorities in Tamil Nadu to “deny” permission to any gathering aimed at “personally targeting a sitting judge.”

In an order passed on Friday, October 30, a bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan said authorities must assess applications seeking permission for meetings, marches or protests relating to judicial matters on a “case-by-case basis,” using their powers under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and local police laws.

“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,” the high court said.

“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,” it added.

It directed the police to complete their investigations into two criminal cases registered in connection with protests against a Madurai Bench judgment in a fair, thorough and expeditious manner.

The plea

The court was hearing a public interest litigation filed by one R Karthikeyan, who sought action against organised campaigns, public meetings, processions, demonstrations and social media publications allegedly targeting judges and undermining the authority of the judiciary.

The petitioner told the court that, in a judgment passed in June last year, another bench of the Madurai bench of the Madras high court had struck down a government order concerning the grant of backwards-class benefits. At the time, the court had held that a person could not claim such benefits purely on the basis of religious conversion. The judgment had also noted that such a practice was “inconsistent with constitutional principles and Islamic theology.”

Following the ruling, several organisations organised protests across the state. The petitioner alleged that these demonstrations went beyond criticism of the judgment and turned into personalised campaigns against one of the judges who delivered it. Posters, public rallies and social media videos allegedly contained abusive and caste-based remarks intended to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Rajendran Raghavan argued that while Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution protects fair and reasoned criticism of judicial decisions, it does not extend to personal attacks, intimidation or attempts to lower the authority of a court. He also contended that the State had failed to prevent such targeted campaigns and sought guidelines to regulate public meetings related to judicial proceedings.

Opposing the plea, State Public Prosecutor John Sathyan submitted that the petition relied on broad generalisations without providing specific details such as dates, police jurisdictions, names of offenders or formal complaints.

The state also argued that existing provisions under Sections 148 and 163 of the BNSS and Section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act provided adequate powers to deal with public disorder. A blanket prohibition on assemblies concerning court decisions, the government said, would “violate constitutional freedoms and disregard the need for case-by-case assessments.”

What the court said

The high court noted the submissions and observed that judicial independence, which forms part of the Constitution's basic structure, requires judges to decide cases solely on the basis of law and facts, free from fear or external pressure.

“Citizens have an undeniable right to disagree with a judgment. However, there is a clear legal line between criticising a legal conclusion and attacking the individual judge who authored it,” the High Court said.

The court added that coordinated actions involving abusive, defamatory or caste-based language directed at a sitting judge could not claim the protection of free speech and would attract the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

“Citizens have an undeniable right to disagree with a judgment. However, there is a clear legal line between criticising 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 India,” the high court said.

The court also rejected the petitioner's contention that the failure to name individuals prominently seen in protest videos in the FIRs demonstrated police inaction. It said an FIR was not intended to be an exhaustive list of all offenders and that the identification and culpability of individuals would have to be established during the investigation.

It directed the State, however, to ensure that if a permitted assembly turns into a personal attack, officers must “end it immediately and take legal action.”