'A Futile Exercise': Madras High Court Quashes CBI Cases Against Police, Advocates Involved In 2009 Violence At Court Premises
The Madras High Court, on Thursday (27th November), quashed the cases registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against 28 advocates and 4 police officers in connection with the violence that broke out in the High Court campus on February 19, 2009. Justice Nirmal Kumar was inclined to quash the criminal case, noting that a decade and a half had passed, and the...
The Madras High Court, on Thursday (27th November), quashed the cases registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against 28 advocates and 4 police officers in connection with the violence that broke out in the High Court campus on February 19, 2009.
Justice Nirmal Kumar was inclined to quash the criminal case, noting that a decade and a half had passed, and the parties had now buried the hatchet. The court also noted that continuing the proceedings would be a futile exercise.
“Now it is the time after a decade and half both of them buried their hatchet and moving forward. In such circumstances, the continuation of the above case would be nothing but abuse of process of law an exercise in futility. Kindling the acrimonious incident again, will do no good for both. Added to it considering the totality of the case based on the statement of witnesses and materials collected, it is suffice to say that it leads to a path of nowhere. In the interest of justice, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners,” the judge said.
Background
On February 19, 2009, which is now being called Black Day by the lawyers of the Madras High Court, a violent clash broke out between the police, stationed in the High Court premises and the lawyers. The clash left many injured, including the police, lawyers, litigants, and even Judges.
In January 2009, the security committee of the Madras High Court introduced a new security system, wherein the police were authorised to ask for ID cards of advocates and check the entry of every Advocate and persons accompanying the lawyers. As per the security arrangement, the police were also authorised to check the vehicles and luggage of the Advocate. This new security system was, however, met with resentment by the lawyers and caused tension between them and the police.
Later, on February 17, 2009, when Dr Subramaniam Swamy appeared before the court to argue a case, a group of agitating lawyers entered the court hall and threw eggs on him. The judges frowned upon the conduct of the lawyers and directed appropriate action against them. The police also registered a case against the concerned lawyers based on the complaint by the Assistant Commissioner, High Court Range.
When Subramaniam Swamy again appeared in the court on February 19, 2009, the police officers had made arrangements for security. While so, a group of lawyers went to B4 police station, situated inside the High Court campus, in the pretext of surrendering, and demanded that an FIR be registered against Swamy under the Schedules Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act. The situation later intensified with the lawyers setting fire on the police station and the police officers lathi charging the crowd present there, including lawyers, litigants and media persons.
The situation then became combative and explosive after the police entered into the High Court and started lathi charging everyone present. The Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order), Additional Director General of Police (Intelligence), the Principal Secretary (Home), the Public Secretary and Chief Secretary were called to the Acting Chief Justice's chamber where directions was issued to the CBI to proceed with the investigation.
The police officers argued that there was no material evidence against them and that it was highly impossible to identify the officers from the videos, as all police officers were wearing helmet and visor at that time. It was further argued that no identification parade was conducted, and the officers were only performing their duty and obeying the orders of the seniors.
The Advocates argued that the prior mobilising of such huge force well in advance would prove that the attack was a pre-planned and that the force was disproportionately excessive.
The court noted that the thin line dividing the showing of protest and using force vanished on the unfortunate day. The court added that the excessive might had affected the entire legal fraternity.
The court noted that there was an inordinate delay as the FIR was registered in the year 2009 and the case was taken on file only in 2025, and the trial was also yet to proceed. Thus, noting the Supreme Court's directions on right to speedy trial being an inalienable right under Article 21 of the Constitution, the court was inclined to quash the proceedings.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. T. Gowthaman, Senior Counsel for Ms. J. Madhumitha
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. K. Srinivasan, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases,
Case Title: S Palanivel Rajan v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police (connected cases)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 447
Case No: Crl.O.P.Nos.9679 of 2025 batch