Don’t grant permission for public gatherings targeting judges, Madras High Court directs Tamil Nadu police

The direction creates a case-by-case screening process for meetings, marches, and protests connected with judicial matters. Tamil Nadu police and district administration must examine each application carefully rather than treat all such gatherings alike. The aim is to prevent pressure or intimidation directed at individual judges while preserving lawful public activity.

The court specifically barred permission for any gathering or march that aims to personally target or intimidate a sitting judge. It also said officials must use powers under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and local Police Acts. These laws provide the legal framework for regulating public assemblies and maintaining order.

The order also covers events that change after permission is granted. If a permitted assembly becomes a personal attack, officers must end it immediately and take appropriate legal action. The directions were issued while disposing of R. Karthikeyan’s PIL concerning campaigns against judges and the judiciary.

To personally target or intimidate a judge means directing threats, abuse, harassment, or coercive pressure at the judge rather than addressing the case. “Scandalise” generally refers to conduct or publications that seriously damage public confidence in the judiciary or undermine its authority. The article uses these terms in describing the petitioner’s concerns, but does not set out a detailed legal test.

Criticism of a judgment is different because it examines the ruling, legal reasoning, evidence, or consequences. A protest can disagree strongly with a court’s conclusion without attacking the judge personally. The distinction turns on whether the message challenges the decision or seeks to frighten, humiliate, or pressure an individual judge.

The High Court’s directions focus on personal targeting and intimidation. They do not say that every disagreement with a judgment is prohibited. Instead, police must assess gatherings case by case and act when a permitted event crosses into personal attacks against judges.

The petitioner’s request was not limited to marches or meetings. He sought preventive and penal measures against organised campaigns, public meetings, processions, demonstrations, speeches, social media publications, and other activities connected with attacks on judicial authority. This made the proposed scope span both physical public activity and online communication.

He also asked authorities to register criminal cases against people who personally attacked judges of constitutional courts. In addition, he wanted fair and expeditious investigations into all cognisable offences. The request therefore addressed conduct, enforcement, investigation, and the rules used to approve public events.

The petitioner further sought guidelines for granting permission for meetings, processions, and demonstrations related to judicial proceedings. The High Court responded with directions requiring continuous evaluation of applications. It specifically prohibited permission for gatherings targeting or intimidating a sitting judge and required immediate action if a permitted assembly became a personal attack.

The demonstrations were linked to a decision by a Madras High Court Bench led by Justice G.R. Swaminathan. That Bench ruled that converted Muslims were not entitled to reservations. The ruling became the immediate background for protests by two organisations named in the proceedings.

Those organisations were Tamil Nadu Thowheed Jamaath and Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam. The source describes their activities as protests conducted after the reservation ruling. It does not provide the dates, size, locations, or detailed demands associated with those demonstrations.

R. Karthikeyan referred to these protests while seeking broader action against organised campaigns and public activities that could scandalise, intimidate, or undermine the judiciary. His PIL also sought rules for approving meetings, processions, and demonstrations connected with judicial proceedings. The High Court issued its directions while disposing of that petition.

Permission for a public gathering is not an unconditional shield for everything said or done there. The High Court directed officers to monitor permitted assemblies connected with judicial matters and respond if the event changes character. The key concern is a shift from public expression to personal attacks against judges.

If that shift occurs, the officers concerned must end the event immediately. The court also directed them to take appropriate legal action. This gives police two linked responsibilities: stop the offending gathering and pursue the conduct under applicable law.

The direction is part of a wider case-by-case system. Police and district officials must evaluate applications under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and local Police Acts. The order therefore addresses both stages: refusing permission beforehand when intimidation is intended, and intervening later if a permitted event becomes personally abusive or threatening.

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, or BNSS, is India’s principal criminal-procedure statute. Local Police Acts are state laws that give police powers and responsibilities concerning public order, policing, and assemblies. The article does not list particular sections or explain every power under these laws.

In this case, the High Court directed police and district administration to use those legal frameworks when reviewing applications for meetings, marches, and protests about judicial matters. Officials must evaluate each request strictly on its facts. They must refuse permission where the gathering aims to personally target or intimidate a sitting judge.

The same framework applies after permission is granted. If the event turns into a personal attack, officers must stop it immediately and take appropriate legal action. Thus, the laws support both preventive decisions before an event and enforcement during an event, while the court’s order sets the specific judicial-protection standard.

Public protest gives people a way to express disagreement with government or court decisions. It can bring attention to legal, social, or political concerns. A democracy therefore needs space for meetings, marches, speeches, and other forms of public expression, including criticism of judgments.

Judicial independence requires a different safeguard. Judges must decide cases without being personally threatened, intimidated, or pressured by organised demonstrations. The High Court’s directions address this risk by barring permission for gatherings aimed at personally targeting or intimidating a sitting judge. They also require officials to stop personal attacks during permitted events.

The order does not impose one blanket rule on every protest about a judicial matter. Instead, police and district officials must examine applications case by case under the BNSS and local Police Acts. That balance allows public disagreement while making clear that protest cannot become personal intimidation of judges.