Cyber Cops Must Monitor Online Attacks On Sitting Judges: Madras High Court

The court has also instructed the police not to grant permission for public gatherings or marches aimed at personally targeting, defaming, or intimidating sitting judges.

30 Oct 2026, 12:15 · NDTV

Show
Quick Read
Summary is AI-generated, newsroom-reviewed

Madras High Court orders cyber police to monitor threats against judges online
Police have been asked to deny permits for gatherings intimidating sitting judges
If protests attack judges personally, police must end events and take legal action

What safety measures are being given to the judge?
Chennai:

The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu Police's Cyber Crime Division to actively monitor digital platforms for content amounting to criminal intimidation of sitting judges and initiate swift legal action against violations. The court has also instructed the police not to grant permission for public gatherings or marches aimed at personally targeting, defaming, or intimidating sitting judges.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan further directed that if a permitted assembly turns into a personal attack on a judge, the officers concerned must immediately end the event and take appropriate legal action. The court also asked the police to complete the investigation into two FIRs registered in connection with the protests in a fair, thorough, and expeditious manner.

The petition was triggered by protests following a June 25, 2026, judgment of the Madurai Bench of the High Court, which declared unconstitutional a government order providing 3.5 per cent reservation benefits to Muslims who had converted to Islam. The judgment held that a person could not claim backward class benefits purely by virtue of religious conversion.

Following the verdict, several organisations, including the Tamil Nadu Thowheed Jamaath and the Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam, held protests across the state. The petitioner alleged that these demonstrations went beyond criticism of the judgment and turned into personalised campaigns against one of the judges who delivered it, involving posters, public rallies, and social media videos containing abusive and caste-based remarks.

The petitioner had sought directions from the Union and Tamil Nadu governments and the police to take effective preventive and penal measures against such campaigns, register criminal cases, and investigate cognisable offences. He had also sought action against the two organisations, their office-bearers, and others allegedly involved in organising or facilitating the protests, besides guidelines regulating permissions for public meetings and demonstrations relating to judicial proceedings.

The High Court underlined the need to balance freedom of expression with judicial independence, observing that the independence of the judiciary was part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

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

"Citizens have an undeniable right to disagree with a judgment. However, there is a clear legal line between criticising a legal conclusion and attacking the individual judge who authored it," the Bench said.

It further observed that coordinated actions using abusive, defamatory, or caste-based language against a sitting judge "do not fall under protected free speech" and violate the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

On the question of whether all protests relating to judicial decisions should be prohibited, the court refused to impose a blanket ban.

"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," the Bench said.

However, the court made it clear that the State was obliged to ensure that public spaces and digital networks were not used to threaten the safety and integrity of judicial institutions.

Got a follow‑up question on this article? Go on

How may i help you today

Show full article

Track Latest News Live on NDTV.com and get news updates from India and around the world