The police must serve the state that lasts and not the party in the government that changes: Madras High Court

Justice N. Ramesh also says that “the measure of a police force is not how it treats the prominent when the press is watching, but how it treats the unknown when no one is looking.” | Photo credit: K. PICHUMANI

The Madras High Court on Monday (Nov 2, 2026) disapproved of the police practice of registering criminal cases against anyone who criticizes or abuses the ruling party, saying police officers must remember that they “serve the state that endures and not the party in government that changes”.

Justice N. Ramesh said the police rarely register cases against members of the ruling party, irrespective of the party in power, based on complaints filed by the opposition. He wrote: “An even hand between the ruling party and its opponents is not a courtesy of the police, it is a condition of its constitutional legitimacy.

The observations were made while granting anticipatory bail to 60-year-old Greater Chennai Corporation councillor, DMK’s D. Sudha, who allegedly abused Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay. The judge agreed with her defense attorney A. Damodaran that the case did not require her arrest and subsequent custodial interrogation.

The judge said that prosecution for defamation would be the proper course of action in cases of the present nature, insulting a dignitary need not be converted into a public order offense so that the coercive machinery of cognizable investigation and threat of arrest can be immediately deployed.

The judge said political discourse in the country now largely takes place on social media, with all major political parties maintaining organized social media outfits, popularly called IT wings, whose day-to-day work involves trolling and abusing opponents.

Questioning the professor

The judge also referred to the incident in which Associate Professor A. Kalaiyarasana of Madras Institute of Development Studies (MIDS) was picked up by the police from his Adyar residence in Chennai on October 28, 2026 at 5 am after someone misused his photo on a fake Instagram account to abuse the TVK MLA.

He emphasized that plainclothes police picked up the economist without any authorization or first information report. After confirming that it was a fake Instagram account, he was released. After that, the minister took note of the slump and the chief minister invited the economist for a meeting.

“The mercy shown at the end does not answer the questions raised: On what basis were plainclothes police officers sent to a citizen’s doorstep at dawn over a comment on social media? And what action followed against those who did so?” He read the order of Justice Ramesh.

It continued: “An apology, however high its source, is no responsibility, and a remedy which depends on the personal intervention of the Chief Minister is no remedy at all. Secondly, this gentleman’s eminence secured his release within a few hours and an audience at the Secretariat; an ordinary citizen without access to power, taken at dawn on the same wrong path, should be tried before anyone tastes lock-up and trial. Even him.”

The judge also wrote: “The measure of a police force is not how it treats the prominent when the press is watching, but how it treats the unknown when no one is looking. It is against this measure that the treatment of political speech – including this case – must be judged.”

While disapproving of insults like “dog” and “corpse” used by the corporation councilor against the chief minister, the judge said: “Those who hold high offices in the republic hold them on the condition that they will be criticized, reviled and not infrequently abused. The office is not so fragile that he can lash out at it in a party meeting when he can to shake the words it proclaims, and to restrain it. one with the machinery of arrest.’

He said: “A self-confident government must meet criticism by argument, ridicule by performance and abuse—where it really crosses the line—with the remedy afforded by the law of libel. Liberality toward political expression is not a grace the state can extend or withhold; it is what the Constitution expects of those who have power over their critics.”

The judge ordered the councilor to appear before an investigating officer daily until further orders, but refused to impose any restraining order to prevent her from making inappropriate speeches in the future. “The court, which gags politicians as the price of freedom, indirectly does what Article 19 (freedom of speech and expression) of the State Constitution directly prohibits. The petitioner’s voluntary commitment to restraint is recorded, it is her promise, not my condition,” he concluded.

Published – 02 Nov 2026 23:57 IST