Political Identity Should Not Influence Police Response To Criminal Complaints: Madras High Court

Justice L Victoria Gowri thus directed the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station to expeditiously process a complaint against persons for allegedly making objectionable social media posts about Naam Tamilar Katchi (NTK) party chief Seeman.

The court noted that the freedom of speech and expression has a cherished position in a constitutional democracy; this freedom was not absolute. The court said that the law did not permit publication of material which amounted to a cognisable offence, merely because it related to a political personality. The court also stressed that the court could not adopt a different approach while dealing with complaints involving different political persons.

“The law does not permit publication of content which may amount to commission of cognizable offences merely because the subject matter concerns a political personality. Conversely, the investigating agency cannot adopt different standards while responding to complaints depending upon the political identity of the individuals involved,” the court said.

The court also further observed that consistency in law enforcement was indispensable and whenever an allegation was made regarding unlawful online content, the police was expected to respond quickly irrespective of whether the matter relates to persons belonging to the ruling party, opposition party, or some other.

“Consistency in law enforcement constitutes an indispensable component of the rule of law. Whenever allegations are made regarding dissemination of unlawful online content attracting penal consequences, the investigating agency is expected to respond with equal promptitude irrespective of whether the complaint pertains to members of the ruling party, the opposition or any other political organisation. The neutrality of the police forms the very foundation of public confidence in the criminal justice administration,” the court said.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Thirumurugan, an advocate and State Coordinator of the NTK party. Thirumurugan submitted that he came across a YouTube video containing morphed images of Seeman coupled with abusive, derogatory, and highly offensive expressions in Tamil. He argued that the contents in the video were not mere criticism of a political personality but intended to insult and defame Seeman through vulgar and indecent expressions.

Thirumurugan submitted that he had lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, the Commissioner of Police and the Inspector of Police seeking initiation of criminal action, but no action was taken, making him approach the court.

On the other hand, the respondent police argued that the complaint had already been taken on file and a CSR number had been registered on July 25, 2026. The police submitted that a summons was issued to Thirumurugan on July 16, July 20, and July 24, asking him to appear for enquiry. It was submitted that the petitioner had not extended cooperation, because of which the enquiry could not proceed expeditiously.

Thirumurugan refuted the allegations and submitted that they were factually incorrect. It was submitted that despite giving the complaint on July 2^nd, no prompt or meaningful investigative steps had been taken by the police. It was also argued that the issuance of summons could not be treated as substantial compliance with the obligation to investigate.

The court noted that the complaint was lodged on July 2^nd, and though a CSR number was issued, the complaint was not acted upon with the promptness expected in matters relating to digital publications.

The court emphasised that in cases involving cyber-related offences, delay would cause disappearance of electronic evidence, alteration of online content, and difficulty in tracing digital footprints. Thus, the court said that prompt intervention by an investigative agency assumes significance.

The court highlighted that while receiving the complaint, the police was not expected to go into the correctness of allegations, but secure the electronic evidence, identify the digital source, preserve material and proceed with the investigation on its own merits.

The court thus directed the police to identify the relevant social media account, YouTube channels, URLs, etc connected with the case. The court also directed the police to preserve the electronic evidence, and initiate appropriate action against the individual respondents if the material collected disclosed the commission of an offence.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. P. Prabhakar Pandian

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. D. Rajaboopathy, Government Advocate (Crl. side)

Case Title: G Thirumurugan @ Theeran Thirumurugan v The State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 359

Case No: WP Crl (MD) No 4187 of 2026