Madras High Court bars protests targeting sitting judges with personal attacks

The Madras High Court on Friday directed Tamil Nadu authorities to deny permission for public gatherings aimed at personally targeting, defaming or intimidating sitting judges.

A bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan said there was a "clear legal line" between "criticising a legal conclusion and attacking an individual judge" who delivered a judgment.

The court directed police to immediately end any permitted assembly that turns into a personal attack on a sitting judge and take appropriate legal action.

"True judicial independence means judges must be free to decide cases based solely on the law and the facts before them," the order said. It added that personal abuse, hostile threats and coordinated intimidation over judicial decisions would strike at the root of the legal system.

The order followed a petition seeking preventive and punitive action against organised campaigns targeting sitting judges.

The petitioner alleged that protests following a June 25, 2026, judgment had turned into a "personalised, hostile and defamatory campaign" against one of the judges. He claimed that posters, rallies and social media videos contained abusive and caste-based remarks.

The judgment had declared unconstitutional a March 9, 2024, government order issued by the Department of Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes and Minorities Welfare. The court had ruled that religious conversion alone could not be the basis for claiming backward class benefits.

The bench said citizens had an "undeniable" right to disagree with judgments, but planned personal attacks using abusive, defamatory or caste-based language were not protected by free speech and fell outside the restrictions permitted under Article 19(2).

The court clarified that it was not imposing a blanket ban on public discussions or peaceful gatherings concerning judicial decisions. It directed police and district authorities to assess applications for such events individually. The Cyber Crime Division was also asked to maintain "active" surveillance of digital platforms to identify content amounting to criminal intimidation of sitting judges.

State Public Prosecutor John Sathyan opposed blanket restrictions, arguing that they would violate constitutional freedoms and that each case required individual assessment.