Police Must Refuse Permission for Protests That Personally Target Judges, Rules Madras High Court in R. Karthikeyan v. Union of India
Case: R. Karthikeyan v. Union of India and Others
Date of Judgment: 30 October 2026
Court: Madras High Court
Coram: Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan
Proceedings: W.P. No. 30622 of 2026
Court Observation
“No permission shall be granted for any public gathering or march that aims to personally target 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.”
Summary
The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu police not to grant permission for any public gathering or march that aims to personally target or intimidate a sitting judge, and to stop immediately any permitted assembly that turns into a personal attack on a judge. The directions were issued while disposing of a public interest petition by R. Karthikeyan of Chennai seeking action against those who scandalise the judiciary.
The Court drew a line between criticising a judgment and attacking the judge who wrote it. Citizens remain free to disagree with a judgment, it held, but coordinated campaigns using abusive, defamatory or caste-based language against a sitting judge are not protected speech and fall within the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
Key Holdings
- Citizens have an undeniable right to disagree with a judgment, but there is a clear legal line between criticising a legal conclusion and attacking the individual judge who authored it.
- Coordinated actions using abusive, defamatory or caste-based language to attack a sitting judge do not fall under protected free speech and violate the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).
- Judicial independence is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and the balance must be struck between free speech and the institutional right to judicial independence.
Directions Issued
- The State police and district administration must continuously evaluate applications for public meetings, marches and protests regarding judicial matters on a strict case-to-case basis under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the local Police Act.
- No permission shall be granted for any public gathering or march that aims to personally target or intimidate a sitting judge; if a permitted assembly turns into a personal attack, officers must end it immediately and take appropriate legal action.
- The police must actively monitor online content to ensure it does not transform into criminal intimidation targeted at sitting judges.
Background
The petition followed protests after a 25 June judgment of the Madurai Bench, by a Bench of Justices G. R. Swaminathan and P. B. Balaji, which struck down a Tamil Nadu government order that allowed persons from Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes, Denotified Communities and Scheduled Castes to be treated as Backward Class Muslims after converting to Islam. The petitioner brought to the Court’s notice protests conducted by Tamil Nadu Thowheed Jamaath and Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam after that judgment, and sought directions to the Centre and the State to act against organised campaigns scandalising the judiciary.
Related Articles
- Freedom of Assembly vs Public Order: Legal Limits of Protest in India
- The thin line between ‘Contempt of Court’ and ‘Free Speech’
Disclaimer: This is a summary prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should refer to the official judgment for the authoritative text.
