The Tamil Nadu Police has informed the Supreme Court of India that concrete steps have been taken to address defamatory and objectionable social media content targeting Justice G.R. Swaminathan of the Madras High Court. The disclosure was made through an affidavit filed by the Director General of Police (DGP), Tamil Nadu, in response to directions issued by the Supreme Court in a public interest litigation (PIL).
The matter was reported on 1 February 2026, following the Supreme Court’s order dated 28 January 2026, directing the State Police to explain what action had been taken against protestors and individuals who allegedly made caste- and religion-based defamatory remarks against a sitting High Court judge.
Background of the Controversy
The controversy stems from judicial orders passed by Justice G.R. Swaminathan, Judge of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, in connection with the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepa Thoon (lamp pillar) located atop the Thiruparankundram Subramaniya Swamy Hill Temple, Madurai.
On 1 December 2025, Justice Swaminathan directed the temple authorities to light the ceremonial lamp. Subsequently, the Court reprimanded the Tamil Nadu Government for allegedly obstructing the implementation of the order. As tensions escalated and compliance did not follow, a contempt petition was filed.
On 3 December 2025, Justice Swaminathan permitted devotees to proceed to the hill and light the Deepam themselves, with CISF protection, citing continued non-compliance by the State.
This judicial intervention triggered protests, social media backlash, and, allegedly, scandalising remarks against the Judge, leading to the present PIL before the Supreme Court.
PIL Before the Supreme Court
The PIL has been filed by Advocate G.S. Mani, who alleged that defamatory, caste-based, and religion-based remarks were circulated against Justice Swaminathan on social media platforms and during public protests.
The petitioner contended that such acts amounted to an attack on the independence of the judiciary, lowered the authority of the Court, and constituted criminal and contemptuous conduct requiring urgent intervention by constitutional courts.
FIR Registered for Objectionable Social Media Posts
In its affidavit, the Tamil Nadu Police informed the Supreme Court that the Cyber Crime Cell of the Greater Chennai Police registered Crime No. 14 of 2026 on 28 January 2026.
The FIR was registered under the following provisions:
- Sections 196, 221, 267, 353(1)(c), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000
These provisions relate to criminal intimidation, public disorder, obstruction of public servants, and publication of objectionable content in electronic form.
Action Taken Against Social Media Platforms
The affidavit states that the Cyber Crime Cell, Central Crime Branch, Greater Chennai Police, undertook active monitoring of social media platforms, including:
- X (formerly Twitter)
- YouTube
- Other digital platforms
The police identified multiple social media handles involved in circulating defamatory and impersonating content. Notices were issued to the Nodal Officers of concerned social media intermediaries, directing them to:
- Remove objectionable posts and content
- Block impersonating accounts
- Preserve original URLs and digital evidence
- Furnish identity details of the account holders
The DGP clarified that while these notices have been issued, responses from intermediaries are awaited, highlighting ongoing challenges in digital law enforcement.
Allegations of Illegal Protests Outside Courts
The affidavit also addressed allegations that individuals affiliated with ruling party-supported organisations, including certain political and legal groups, staged unauthorised protests outside the Madras and Madurai Benches of the High Court.
In this regard:
- A Community Service Register (CSR) was issued
- The matter is under enquiry by the Inspector of Police
The police emphasised that any unlawful assembly or obstruction of court functioning would be dealt with strictly in accordance with law.
Pamphlet Calling for Siege of Madurai Bench
A particularly serious allegation involved the circulation of a pamphlet purportedly issued in the name of “Ikkiya Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam, Madurai District”, calling for a siege of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on 3 December 2025.
In response:
- A criminal case was registered at Tallakulam Police Station
- Fifteen persons were preventively arrested
- The accused were later released on bail
- Investigation is ongoing under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Protest Obstructing Public Movement
Another case was registered at Y. Othakadai Police Station, where:
- 37 persons allegedly obstructed traffic and public movement
- The obstruction occurred during protests relating to the judicial order on Karthigai Deepam
- The accused were arrested and released on bail on the same day
The police noted that maintaining public order while respecting the right to protest remains a delicate constitutional balance.
Directions to Prevent Scandalising the Judiciary
The affidavit further informed the Supreme Court that the Director General of Police has issued instructions across the State, in compliance with prior Madras High Court directions, mandating:
- Immediate and effective action against scandalising content
- Prevention of circulation of pictorial representations, statements, or defamatory material targeting courts or judges
This underscores the State’s obligation to protect the institutional dignity of the judiciary.
Ongoing Judicial Proceedings
It is relevant to note that:
- The Tamil Nadu Government’s Letters Patent Appeal against the contempt order was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court
- The Division Bench subsequently upheld the order of the Single Judge
- The matter is now under consideration before the Supreme Court
Additionally, the affidavit mentions that opposition Members of Parliament have moved an impeachment motion against Justice G.R. Swaminathan, adding a further constitutional dimension to the controversy.
Legal and Constitutional Significance
This case raises critical questions relating to:
- Judicial independence and authority
- Limits of free speech on social media
- Criminalisation of defamatory and scandalising content
- State responsibility to protect judges from targeted abuse
- Intersection of religion, public order, and judicial decision-making
The Supreme Court’s scrutiny of the State’s response reflects its broader role as a guardian of constitutional institutions, particularly in an era where digital platforms amplify misinformation and targeted attacks.
Conclusion
The affidavit filed by the Tamil Nadu DGP before the Supreme Court demonstrates a concerted effort by law enforcement to address defamatory social media content, unlawful protests, and threats to judicial authority. While investigations are ongoing and responses from social media intermediaries are awaited, the case highlights the growing challenges faced by the judiciary in maintaining its dignity amidst digital and political backlash.
As the Supreme Court continues to hear the PIL in G.S. Mani v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (WP(C) 536/2025), the outcome is likely to have lasting implications for judicial protection, digital accountability, and the limits of protest in a constitutional democracy.
Also Read
Quasi-Judicial Authority Cannot Challenge Order Setting Aside Its Own Decision: Kerala High Court
