When the matter came up before Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan on Thursday (July 23), Senior Advocate P Wilson, appearing for the MLA, argued that due process was not followed while arresting the MLA. Since the state Public Prosecutor John Sathyan sought time to file a counter in the plea, the court adjourned the hearing to July 27.

The DMK MLA had approached the court challenging his remand by the Thoothukudi Judicial Magistrate in connection with a case for allegedly making threatening remarks against the Chief Minister.

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, 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 Magistrate. The Magistrate had expressed satisfaction with the remand report and found 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.

Case Title: GV Markandayan v The State

Case No: Crl OP (MD) 15390 of 2026