The Madras High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a woman councillor booked over alleged derogatory remarks against the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, observing that political speech, including hostile, unfair and intemperate criticism of public office-holders, lies at the core of the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Justice N. Ramesh held that the speech, though objectionable, was directed at an individual political leader and did not exhort anyone to commit any act. The Court observed that criticism of those in power cannot be subjected to criminal law unless it tends to incite violence or public disorder.
The petitioner, a councillor of Ward No. 95 of the Greater Chennai Corporation and a functionary of the DMK women’s wing, had allegedly used derogatory expressions against the Chief Minister while addressing a party gathering at Raja Annamalai Mandram, Chennai, on October 7, 2026. A video of the speech was subsequently uploaded on social media.
An FIR was registered on October 19, 2026 on a complaint by a functionary of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam. The petitioner was booked under Sections 296(b), 352 and 353(1)(c) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The Court noted that the complaint was lodged 12 days after the speech and that the complainant was not present at the gathering. It also took note of the petitioner’s public expression of regret and an affidavit tendering an apology to the Chief Minister, along with an undertaking to exercise care and restraint in future public utterances.
Examining the provisions invoked in the FIR, the Court observed that abusive or defamatory language does not, by itself, amount to obscenity under Section 296(b) BNS. It further noted that Section 352 requires an insult likely to provoke the person insulted into breaching public peace, while Section 353(1)(c) requires an intention or likelihood to incite a class or community to commit an offence against another class or community. The Court found that the FIR identified no such classes or communities and that political parties could not be treated as classes or communities for this purpose.
The Court further observed that the alleged insult to the Chief Minister was essentially a grievance falling within the law of defamation. It noted that the BNSS provides a special procedure under Section 222(2) to (4) for prosecuting defamation concerning a public functionary in respect of the discharge of public functions, requiring a complaint by the Public Prosecutor with prior Government sanction before the Court of Session.
On the question of arrest, the Court noted that the alleged offences carried a maximum punishment of three years, the speech was already recorded and available in the form of video and transcript, and the State had not demonstrated any specific investigative purpose requiring custodial interrogation. It also found that the apprehensions of absconding and evidence tampering were not supported by particulars.
The Court also emphasised that the police must maintain an even hand between the ruling party and its political opponents, observing that the police serve the State and not the party in government. It cautioned against using the threat of arrest as a response to political speech, however strong, so long as it does not incite violence or public disorder.
Importantly, the Court declined to impose a condition restraining the petitioner from speaking against the Chief Minister as a prerequisite for bail. It held that a blanket restriction on expression would serve no legitimate purpose of securing the accused’s presence, protecting evidence or preventing repetition of an offence. The petitioner’s undertaking to exercise restraint was recorded as her voluntary promise and not imposed as a bail condition.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the anticipatory bail petition and directed that the petitioner be released on bail in the event of arrest or upon appearance before the jurisdictional Magistrate within 15 days of the order copy being made ready. The conditions include execution of a bond of ₹25,000 with two sureties, and daily appearance before the respondent police at 10:30 AM until further orders.
