Don’t allow protests that target sitting judges: Madras HC

The court opined that a blanket order completely banning all public discussions or peaceful gatherings concerning court rulings would go too far.
Madras High Court
Madras High Court (Photo | Express)
Updated on: 
2 min read

CHENNAI: Holding that personal attacks on judges affect the independence of the judiciary, the Madras High Court has directed the state government not to give permission to any protests aimed at a sitting judge.

The order was passed by the first division bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan on Friday while disposing of a petition filed by R Karthikeyan of Chennai.

“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 bench said.

Karthikeyan sought directions for the police to take appropriate action against the Tamil Nadu Thowheed Jamath and Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam for staging protests and making adverse comments against Justice G R Swaminathan over his order to strike down a GO providing backward class benefits to religious converts.

The bench directed the state police and district administrations to continue to evaluate all applications for public meetings, marches or protests regarding judicial matters on a strict case-by-case basis, using their powers under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and local Police Acts.

“No permission shall be granted for any public gathering or march that aims to personally target, defame or intimidate a sitting judge. If a permitted assembly turns into a personal attack, the officers concerned shall end the event immediately and take appropriate legal action,” the bench said.

The court opined that 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.

Stating that citizens have an undeniable right to disagree with a judgment, the bench said, however, there is a clear legal line between criticising 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, it added.

X