Madras HC: free speech doesn't protect personal attacks on judges over a verdict

The Madras High Court, hearing a public interest litigation under Article 226, examined how far public criticism of a judgment can go before it becomes an attack on a judge. The petition followed protests against a Madurai Bench ruling that struck down a government order allowing backward-class benefits based on religious conversion; the petitioner said the protests turned into personalised, caste-based attacks on one judge of that bench. A Division Bench led by the Chief Justice held that citizens may criticise a judgment, but Article 19(1)(a)'s guarantee of free speech does not protect coordinated, abusive or intimidatory campaigns against a sitting judge over a decision; such conduct falls outside protected speech and attracts the reasonable restrictions in Article 19(2), since judicial independence is part of the Constitution's basic structure.

The Court noted police had already registered two FIRs under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita when protesters defied permission, and declined to pass a blanket ban on all protests about court rulings, calling that disproportionate. Instead, it directed police to assess every request for a protest on judicial matters case by case, deny permission to events aimed at targeting a judge personally, end any permitted assembly that turns into a personal attack, and keep the Cyber Crime Division watching online content for criminal intimidation of judges.