Madras High Court Reserves Orders On MLA Markandayan's Challenge To Remand In Case Over 'Threatening' Remarks Against CM Vijay

As per the prosecution, on July 18, Markandayan held a public meeting to express gratitude to the voters on behalf of the political party. During the meeting, he allegedly made highly derogatory, abusive, and threatening remarks against the Chief Minister. It was alleged that he had insulted the Chief Minister and said that the CM would be dealt with inside the Legislative Assembly and would be harmed if certain actions were taken.

Based on a complaint, a case was registered against Markandayan for offences under Sections 351(3), 352, and 353(2) of the BNS on July 19.

On July 20, 2026, Markandayan was arrested and remanded to judicial custody till August 3, 2026, by the Thoothukudi Judicial Magistrate. The Magistrate had expressed satisfaction with the remand report and found a prima facie case against Markandayan.

Markandayan argued that the offences that were alleged against him carried a punishment for imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years. He argued that as per Section 35(3) of the BNS [Section 41A of CrPC], he should not have been arrested without affording an opportunity to appear. He argued that since the charges carried a punishment of not less than 7 years, the police officer was mandatorily required to issue a notice before proceeding with the arrest. He also argued that non-compliance with the mandate would render the arrest unlawful and would amount to abuse of process of law.

It was further argued that the Magistrate had failed to appreciate this aspect and mechanically remanded Markandayan without satisfying the requirements of Section 35 of the BNSS. It was argued that the Magistrate also failed to consider that no reasons were recorded by the arresting officer justifying the arrest and the same was not placed before the Magistrate for judicial scrutiny.

It was thus argued that the remand order was vitiated as the arrest was in clear violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. It was also argued that the remand order, issued without proper application of mind was violative of Markandayan's fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. Thus, he had sought to set aside the remand order and grant of bail.

Arguing for Markandayan, Wilson submitted that as per law, the police is mandated to record the reasons to believe that an offence has been committed and the reasons for arriving at subjective satisfaction that arrest is necessary in the case. He argued that in the present case, teher was nothing to show that the police recorded the reasons or whether such reasons were communicated to Markandayan. 

He also argued that in the present case, the prosecution had not obtained any prior legal opinion from the Prosecutor but only obtained it after making the arrest. He argued that this was a case where the police made the arrest first and then built a case. He thus argued that it was a fit case for the court to interfere.

Wilson argued that mere expression of a word without any intention will not constitute an offence. He argued that in the present case, the MLA was only replying to a taunt made by the Chief Minister saying that he will close the doors of the assembly. 

"Mere expression of words without any intention to cause alarm is not an offence. Here MLA only made the speech. What is the satisfaction that there was intention. This is a fit case to protect right. Opposition plays a major role in bringing out shortcomings of the government. The remark was made as a response to a taunt by the CM that he would lock the assembly. It's a speech not with intention or mens rea" Wilson argued.

Countering the arguments, State PP John Sathyan argued that the speech would not come within the purview of fair criticism. It was argued that there was a necessity of arrest since the Assembly was going to be constituted the following day, and the prosecution could not experiment to take a chance whether the petitioner would act on his words or not. He thus argued that the arrest was made since there was imminent threat against the Chief Minister. 

The prosecutor also argued that the speech was not one confined within four walls and was widely publicised by members of the petitioner's party itself. He argued that if no action was taken in the present case, it would embolden the petitioner to make such statements in the future also to gain popularity.

"Here, this is a speech. He was speaking to a class of people. This speech was not just witnessed by his partymen but throughout the state. If no action is taken, he's emboldened to make a statement again to gain popularity...Since the assembly was to be convened in the next couple of days, we couldn't take a chance. Prima facie offence constituted, complaint received, there was a case," Sathyan said. 

Sathyan also argued that the mandatory requirements while effecting an arrest were followed in the present case. He argued that after arrest, an intimation of arrest was given to Markandayan's brother-in-law. Since the brother-in-law did not appear in the police station, another intimation was given to Markandayan's friend who was present at the station. He also submitted that the grounds of arrest were also served on Markandayan and he had signed the same, which was telecast on the news channels also. He thus arued that there was no illegality committed by the prosecution and the Magistrate had passed the remand order after considering all the relevant aspects.

After hearing the parties, the bench said that it would pass orders.

Case Title: GV Markandayan v The State

Case No: Crl OP (MD) 15390 of 2026