Madras High Court Asks Nakkeeran Gopal To Appear Before Police In Promoting Enmity Case, Says Accused Can't Seek General 'No Harassment' Order

“When the petitioner is an accused in a registered case, the prayer for a general direction not to harass cannot be entertained by this Court,” the court observed.

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy thus refused to grant protection to journalist Nakeeran Gopal in his plea seeking direction to the police not to harass him. The court, however, added that Gopal would be at liberty to challenge the conditions that were imposed in the notice issued under Section 35(3) of BNSS, if they interfered with his fundamental right to freedom. The court added that the police could not seek information which was not legally permissible or not directly connected with the alleged offence.

It may be noted that Gopal has been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court on August 11, 2026, after this order of the High Court.

“With regard to the conditions imposed in the notice, the petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court with an appropriate prayer if the conditions are pressed to such an extent as to interfere with his fundamental right to freedom of speech or if the respondent police seek information which is not legally permissible or is directly connected with the alleged commission of the offence,” the court said.

Gopal submitted that he had given an interview to a social media channel, based on which, a case had been registered for offences under Sections 352 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), 353(1)(b) (circulating false statements, rumors, or reports) and 196 (promoting enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different groups) of the BNS. He submitted that he had already approached the court seeking anticipatory bail and while the same was pending, the police was showing undue haste in proceeding against him. He submitted that the police was sending him repeated notices under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, asking him to appear on the nery next day and on subsequent dates.

Gopal argued that he was being harassed by the police. He submitted that the police was imposing conditions, curtailing his fundamental right to freedom of speech. He also submitted that the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar had been violated in the present case and that the police could not insist on him furnishing information.

The State, on the other hand, argued that the conditions imposed on the notice could not be taken as a violation of Gopal's right to freedom of speech. He argued that the conditions were usual and regular conditions which have been imposed as per the High Court's order in previous cases.

The court noted that Gopal had rightly approached the Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail and it was for the court to consider the same as per law. The court also noted that irrespective of the outcome of the anticipatory bail plea, Gopal was required to appear before the police as per the notice issued under Section 35(2) of BNSS. The court thus directed him to appear before the court on August 13.

With respect to the conditions, the court said that Gopal could challenge the same if it violated his fundamental rights.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. P. T. Perumal

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. M. Mohamed Riyaz Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

Case Title: Nakkeeran Gopal v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 381

Case No: CRL OP Nos. 22419 & 22448 of 2026