Madras High Court Rejects MLA Markandayan's Challenge To Remand In Case Over 'Threatening' Remarks Against CM Joseph Vijay

The Madras High Court on Wednesday (August 5) dismissed a plea filed by Vilathikulam MLA GV Markandayan challenging his remand in a case registered over his alleged derogatory and threatening remarks against Chief Minister Joseph Vijay. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 366]Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan dismissed the plea. With respect to a consequential prayer sought by the MLA seeking bail, the court noted that it had already granted bail to the MLA.The court had reserved orders on July 28, after hearing senior advocate P Wilson for Markandayan and State Public Prosecutor John Sathyan. Meanwhile, Markandayan was granted bail by the court on the condition that he file an affidavit undertaking not to make such remarks against the CM in the future. Markandayan was also directed to appear before the investigating officer twice daily for a period of two weeks, except on days when the State Legislative Assembly is in sessionAs 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 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, there 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.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.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...

Madras High Court Rejects MLA Markandayan's Challenge To Remand In Case Over 'Threatening' Remarks Against CM Joseph Vijay

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

Madras High Court Rejects MLA Markandayan's Challenge To Remand In Case Over 'Threatening' Remarks Against CM Joseph Vijay

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers