The Madras high court has refused to restrict public protests against court rulings and emphasised that citizens have an undeniable right to disagree with a judgment, underscoring citizens’ right to “question and peacefully protest” against judicial decisions.
“A blanket order completely banning all public discussions or peaceful gatherings concerning court rulings would go too far. The court also directed the Cyber Crime Division of the Tamil Nadu police to actively monitor digital platforms to ensure that online content does not cross the line into criminal intimidation directed at sitting judges. It directed the police to complete their investigations into two criminal cases registered in connection with protests against a Madurai Bench judgment in a fair, thorough and expeditious manner. The court also rejected the petitioner’s contention that the failure to name individuals prominently seen in protest videos in the FIRs demonstrated police inaction.
The state also argued that existing provisions under Sections 148 and 163 of the BNSS and Section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act provided adequate powers to deal with public disorder.
However, the court directed the state and police authorities in Tamil Nadu to “deny” permission to any gathering aimed at “personally targeting a sitting judge. In an order passed on Friday, October 30, a bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan said authorities must assess applications seeking permission for meetings, marches or protests relating to judicial matters on a “case-by-case basis,” using their powers under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and local police laws. It would infringe upon legitimate democratic expression,” the high court said. A blanket prohibition on assemblies concerning court decisions, the government said, would “violate constitutional freedoms and disregard the need for case-by-case assessments. It said an FIR was not intended to be an exhaustive list of all offenders and that the identification and culpability of individuals would have to be established during the investigation.
