Madras High Court Directs Police To Monitor Online Content Targeting Judges, Bars Public Meetings Aimed At Intimidating Them

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan observed that though citizens have a right to criticise a judgment, there should be a line between criticism and attacking the judge who authored it. The court made it clear that abusive, defamatory or caste-based attacks against a judge would not come within the purview of free speech under the Constitution.

“Citizens have an undeniable right to disagree with a judgment. However, there is a clear legal line between criticizing a legal conclusion and attacking the individual judge who authored it. Coordinated actions that use abusive, defamatory or caste-based language to attack a sitting judge do not fall under protected free speech. They violate the reasonable restrictions set out under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of the India,” the court observed.

The court added that while it could not impose a blanket ban on public discussions regarding court orders as the same would infringe democratic expression, the State was under an obligation to ensure that such public gatherings are not used to threaten the integrity of the judicial insititution.

“A blanket order completely banning all public discussions or peaceful gatherings concerning court rulings would go too far. It would infringe upon legitimate democratic expression. However, the State remains under a strict obligation to ensure that its public spaces and digital networks are not used to threaten the safety and integrity of our judicial institutions,” the court said.

The court thus directed the State police and District Administration to evaluate all applications for public meetings, marches and protests regarding judicial matters on a strict case-by-case basis, using their powers under BNSS and local police Acts.

The court also directed the State to deny permission for any public gathering that aimed to target a judge personally. The court added that if any public assembly turns into a personal attack, the officers concerned shall end the event immediately and take appropriate legal action.

The court passed the directions in a public interest litigation filed by R Karthikeyan, seeking directions to the State and law enforcement agencies to take preventive and punitive action against organised public campaigns targeting sitting judges. The petitioner had also sought for framing appropriate guidelines governing the grant of permission for public meetings, processions and demonstrations relating to judicial proceedings or personally targeting Constitutional courts and sitting Judges.

The petitioner had sought directions to take effective preventive and penal measures against organised campaigns, public meeting, processions, demonstrations, speeches, social media publications or other activities scandalising, intimidating or undermining the authority of the judiciary or personally targeting any sitting Judge of the High Court or any Constitutional Court.

The petitioner had also sought to register appropriate criminal cases and to conduct a fair and expeditious investigation in all such cases. The petitioner had also sought for action against office bearers of Tamil Nadu Thowheed Jamaath (TNTJ) and Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK) for organising public meetings against a sitting judge of the High Court.

The petitioner pointed out that after the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court had passed an order regarding reservation benefits post conversion, there were wide-ranging public protests against one of the judges of the bench.

The petitioner argued that the protests turned into personalised, hostile, and defamatory campaigns. The petitioner submitted that the meetings displayed abusive language and caste-based remarks designed to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

The petitioner argued that the freedom of speech and expression does not protect deliberate personal attacks, intimidation or attempts to lower the authority of the bench. The petitioner also pointed out that the State had a constitutional duty to maintain an environment where Judges and judicial officers could perform their functions without fear.

The petitioner also argued that the local police had failed to prevent the targeted public assemblies of restrict the spread of objectionable materials. Though the State argued that FIRs were registered with respect to such meetings, the petitioner argued that the individuals in the forefront of the protest were not named in the FIR.

The court observed that true judicial independence means a judiciary where the judges are free to decide cases solely on the basis of law and facts. The court added that if the judges are subjected to personal attacks for their judicial decisions, it would strike the root of the legal system.

“True judicial independence means judges must be free to decide cases based solely on the law and the facts before them. The Supreme Court of India has reiterated that an independent judiciary is a part of the basic structure of our Constitution. If judges are subjected to personal abuse, hostile threats or coordinated intimidation because of their judicial decisions, it will strike at the root of the legal system,” the court said.

The court took note of the FIRs registered by the State. With respect to the petitioner's claim that prominent persons were not named in the FIR, the court observed that the FIR was not an encyclopaedia or exhaustive roster of every individual offender and mere absence of individual names could not imply institutional passivity.

The court thus directed the police to complete the investigation into the criminal cases. The court also directed the Cyber Crime Division of State Police to maintain active surveillance over digital platforms, ensuring that online content does not transgress into criminal intimidation against judges.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Rajendran Raghavan

Counsel for Respondents: Dr. G. Babu CGSPC, Mr. S. Ganesh Babu Govt Advocate, Mr. John Sathyan, State Public Prosecutor, asst by Mr. N. Palanivel, Govt Advocate (Crl Side)