Chennai, Oct 31:
The Madras High Court has directed the police and district authorities not to grant permission for public meetings or rallies aimed at personally defaming judges over their judicial decisions. It also ordered cybercrime police to monitor social media for posts threatening judges and take prompt legal action against offenders.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S A Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan issued the directions while hearing a public interest litigation filed by R Karthikeyan of Chennai.
The petition sought action against those allegedly conducting campaigns and making defamatory remarks against a judge who was part of a Madurai Bench ruling on June 25. The ruling held that a person who had converted to Islam could not claim the status of a Backward Class Muslim.
Following the verdict, organisations, including the Tamil Nadu Thowheed Jamaath and the Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam, staged protests across the State. The petitioner alleged that some campaigns targeted one of the judges personally and sought directions to prevent such meetings and social media posts, besides registration of criminal cases against those responsible.
The Bench observed that judicial independence, recognised as part of the Constitution’s basic structure, required judges to make decisions independently based on law and facts. Personally defaming judges over their judicial decisions undermined the foundations of the legal process, it said.
While citizens had the right to express disagreement with court verdicts, they could not resort to personal attacks against judges, which would not fall within the permissible limits of free speech, the judges observed.
The court clarified that public discussions and peaceful assemblies could not be subjected to a blanket ban. However, the authorities had a duty to ensure that public speeches and digital platforms were not used to threaten judicial integrity or security.
The Bench issued the following directions:
– Police and district authorities must carefully scrutinise applications seeking permission for public meetings, rallies and protests against judicial decisions.
– No permission should be granted for meetings or rallies intended to personally defame judges.
– If an authorised gathering turns into a platform for personal attacks against judges, the authorities must take immediate steps to stop it.
– Cybercrime police must closely monitor social media for posts threatening judges personally and initiate prompt legal action against those acting unlawfully.
The court also directed the police to expedite the investigation into a case registered in connection with a protest allegedly conducted without permission against a judge.