Madras High Court
S.Mahendran vs The Deputy Superintendent Of Police on 27 November, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 10.09.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 27.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019, 26343 of 2024, 8150 & 9174 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.2966 of 2019 and 14641 & 16462 of 2024 and
5306, 5400, 6081 & 6096 of 2025
Crl.O.P.No.5101 of 2019:
S.Mahendran ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Central Bureau Investigation,
Special Crime Branch,
Rajaji Bhavan,
Besant Nagar,
Chennai-600090. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to set-aside the interim final report filed by the
respondent/CBI in PRC.No.8 of 2010 on the file of the learned Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore at Chennai and to direct the
respondent/CBI to conduct full fledged investigation in RC/1/S/2009 in a fair
manner.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Mohanakrishnan for
Page No.1 of 59
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch
Mr.K.Muthuramalingam
For Respondent : Mr.K.Srinivasan,
Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases
Crl.O.P.No.26343 of 2024:
J.Kingsly Solomon ... Petitioner
Vs.
Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Special Investigation Team,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Chennai. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records of the proceedings in
PRC.No.8 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Egmore, Chennai and quash the same in so far it relates to the petitioner
herein.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Mohanakrishnan for
Mr.R.Harikrishnan
For Respondent : Mr.K.Srinivasan,
Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases
Crl.O.P.No.8150 of 2025:
Page No.2 of 59
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch
1.S.Rajinikanth
2.Vijendran
3.A.Kumana Raja
4.Angayarkani @ Kayalvizhi @ Kayal
5.S.Sengodi
6.Porkodi
7.S.Parthasarathy
8.G.Balakrishnan @ Balu
9.R.Raja
10.M.Duraimurugan
11.G.Sreenivasan
12.C.Panneer Selvam
13.G.Mohanakrishnan
14.B.Sudhir Kumar
15.J.Ganesh
16.M.Purushothaman
17.N.Vadivambal
18.Dalit Tiger @ C.Ponnusamy
19.B.Meenatchi Sundaram @ Gold Kannan @ Kannan
20.P.Ananda Kumar
21.A.Anandan
22.L.Sankaran
23.R.Sankara Subbu ... Petitioners
Vs.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Central Bureau Investigation,
Special Crime Branch,
Rajaji Bhavan,
Besant Nagar,
Chennai – 600 090.
(Crime No.RC 1(S)/2009/SCB/CHN). ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Page No.3 of 59
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records relating to the case in
PRC.No.8 of 2010 pending on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same with regard to these
petitioners.
For Petitioners
1 to 7 & 9 to 23 : Mr.G.Mohanakrishnan for
Mr.K.G.Senthil Kumar
For 8th Petitioner : Mr.R.Balasubramaniam
For Respondent : Mr.K.Srinivasan,
Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases
Crl.O.P.No.9174 of 2025:
1.P.Pugalenthi
2.R.Jaikumar ... Petitioners
Vs.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Central Bureau Investigation,
Special Crime Branch,
Rajaji Bhavan,
Besant Nagar,
Chennai – 600 090.
(Crime No.RC 1(S)/2009/SCB/CHN). ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Page No.4 of 59
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records of the proceedings in
PRC.No.8 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Egmore, Chennai and quash the same in so far it relates to the petitioner
herein.
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Mohanakrishnan for
Mr.K.G.Senthil Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.K.Srinivasan,
Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases
COMMON ORDER
The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.5101 of 2019 is A13. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.26343 of 2024 is A14. The petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.8150 of 2025 are A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A10, A12, A15, A16, A17, A18, A21, A22, A24, A25, A26, A27, A29, A31 & A32. The petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.9174 of 2025 is A33 & A34. All the petitioners are facing trial for offence under Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 332, 333, 353, 436 & 450 IPC and Section 3(1) & 4 of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Destruction & Loss) Act, 1992 in P.R.C.No.8 of 2010 before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai (trial Court).
2.Pursuant to the incident of violence between the Advocates and Police personnels at Madras High Court complex on 19.02.2009, two cases were Page No.5 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch registered by the respondent/CBI in RC 1(S)/2009/SCB/CHN on 28.02.2009 against the Advocates, the petitioners herein and a case in RC 2(S)/2009/SCB/CHN against unknown Police officials and others on 09.03.2009.
3.Background of the case in RC 1(S)/2009/SCB/CHN is as follows:
(i)B4 High Court Police Station functioning within the Campus of Madras High Court since 1996. Earlier, the Advocates of Madras High Court Boycotted the Court proceedings from 29.01.2009 to 17.02.2009 on Srilankan Tamil issue and on 18.02.2009 against the proposed Amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 17.02.2009, when Dr.Subramaniam Swamy, Janata Party leader appeared in the Court Hall No.3 of Madras High Court, a group of Advocates assaulted him and the Police personnels present and disrupted the Court proceedings. The Police (B4 High Court Police Station) registered a case in Crime No.13 of 2009 for offence under Sections 147, 451, 355, 353, 332, 506(ii) and 307 IPC r/w Section 3(i) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Destruction & Loss) Act, 1992 on 18.02.2019, against 14 named Advocates and 6 others on the complaint by Mr.Khader Mohideen, Assistant Commissioner, High Court Range. The Police made efforts for arrest the Page No.6 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch named Advocates in Crime No.13 of 2009, on 18.02.2009 and one Advocate arrested.
(ii)On 19.02.2009, the Advocates resumed work and attended the Courts. On that day, Dr.Subramaniam Swamy was again scheduled to appear before the Madras High Court. Taking into account the untoward incident happened on 17.02.2009 and the threat perception, the Police drew up a bandobust scheme and made elaborate security arrangements on 19.02.2009 adding strength to B4 High Court Police Station. Mr.A.K.Viswanathan, I.P.S., (then Additional Commissioner of Police, Law & Order, Chennai), Mr.M.Ramasubramani (then Joint Commissioner of Police-North, Chennai) personally supervised the security arrangements. Dr.Subramaniam Swamy attended the Court and left the High Court premises by 11.30 hours.
Thereafter, the Police personnels and Officers drafted for bandobust, reassembled at B2 Esplanade Police Station adjoining the High Court Campus for debriefing by the Joint Commissioner of Police (North).
(iii)On 19.02.2009, around noon, in the Library Hall of Madras High Court Advocate Association, some of the Advocates discussed registration of Page No.7 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch Crime No.13 of 2009 against the Advocates and the attempts made by the Police on 18.02.2009 to arrest Advocates. At that time, a conspiracy hatched to deceive the Police projecting remaining Advocates prepared to voluntarily surrender. After the departure of Dr.Subramaniam Swamy, two Advocates approached the Police officials stationed at B2 Esplanade Police Station, met Mr.Kannappan, Assistant Commissioner of Police seeking list of Advocates named and unnamed in Crime No.13 of 2009 and offered to voluntarily surrender. They requested Police not to go to the residences of the Advocates who are named in Crime No.13 of 2009 for arresting them. Expecting the surrender of Advocates, the Police force drafted for the bandobust for Dr.Subramaniam Swamy retained at B2 Esplanade Police Station.
(iv)Pursuant to the meeting in the Association, the Advocates came in a procession to the B4 High Court Police Station under the pretext of voluntary surrender but insisted to register a case against Dr.Subramaniam Swamy and arrest him under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 alleging that he abused an Advocate. The meeting of Advocates continued till 14.00 hours, a Senior Advocate dictated the complaint.
Page No.8 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch
(v)Following the meeting and drafting the complaint, around 150 Advocates led by former President of Madras High Court Advocate Association, raising slogans against Dr.Subramaniam Swamy, Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.K.Mishra and Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.Chandru, came in procession, assembled in front of B4 High Court Police Station at 14.10 hours. On receipt of the information, Police force was sent from B2 Esplanade Police Station to B4 High Court Police Station. The Advocates as a group in front of B4 High Court Police Station, demanded registration of case against Dr.Subramaniam Swamy as a pre-condition for surrender of the Advocates named in Crime No.13 of 2009. On the complaint of the Advocate, Police registered a case in Crime No.14 of 2009 for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and 506(ii) IPC against Dr.Subramaniam Swamy and another and the copy of FIR was given. After receiving the copy of the FIR, the assembled Advocates resiled from their promise and refused to surrender and instead made a fresh demand to arrest Dr.Subramaniam Swamy, Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.K.Mishra and Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.Chandru.
Page No.9 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch
(vi)The Advocates created a commotion and prevented the Police from apprehending the Advocates named in Crime No.13 of 2009 who were present, they started moving away from the place. At about 15.45 hours, the Police rounded some of the Advocates present there, taken them in a Police van from the High Court campus in a Police van. The assembled Advocates became restive creating commotion, assaulted the Police by pelting stones and damaged the Police Station.
(vii)The Advocates acting under a common object facilitated the escape of named Advocates in Crime No.13 of 2009 from custody and prevented the Police from discharge of their official duty.
(viii)The Advocates first pelted stones attacking the Police personnels. The Advocates assembled in mob under the bridges near the City Civil Court building and Additional City Civil Court building and started attacking by pelting stones from different directions, they continued stone pelting and the Police declared the Advocates gathered as unlawful and ordered asked them to disperse. When they refused, Police used force by resorting to latti charge. The Police positioned themselves near B4 High Court Police Station. The Page No.10 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch Advocates reassembled and again attacked the Police raining bricks and stones. Left with no other option, the Police to maintain law and order, latti charged the Advocates. The brick batting by Advocates followed by latti charge by the Police all took place till 17.14 hours. Many Advocates, Policemen and others including a High Court Judge sustained injuries. The attack continued unabated from 15.45 hours till 17.15 hours.
(ix)The Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice contacted Mr.K.Radhakrishnan, then Commissioner of Police through mobile phone at about 17.14 hours and instructed him to withdraw the Police force from the High Court campus immediately. The Commissioner of Police withdrew the Police force and directed the Police men to move to B2 Esplanade Police Station. When the Police force withdrew, a mob of Advocates regrouped, assembled in front of B4 High Court Police Station in furtherance of the conspiracy forcibly broke open the lock, trespassed into B4 High Court Police Station, ransacked it, broke open the Almirahs, cupboards and took out the articles and records. They took petrol from the two-wheelers parked in front of the Police Station, set fire to the two-wheelers and other articles, one of the Advocate burnt a Police uniform and two-wheelers, case records and materials thrown into the Page No.11 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch fire.
(x)The Commissioner of Police sent one Fire Tender to extinguish the fire. Though Fire Tender reached the burning B4 High Court Police Station, it was not allowed to douse the fire. Due to intense stone pelting, Fire Tender damaged and retreated without putting out the fire.
(xi)The personal belongings of the Police personnel, Government/private private and case properties including 3 two wheelers all burnt destroyed in the fire. At about 17.45 hours, the Commissioner of Police ordered for dispersal of the rioting Advocates by Police force. Thereafter, latti charge intensified with force on the unruly Advocates and Fire Tender deployed to extinguish the fire.
(xii)For setting fire to B4 Police Station and damage to properties, FIR in Crime No.15 of 2009 dated 19.02.2009 registered on the complaint of C.Jayakodi, Inspector of Police against the Advocates. Thereafter, pursuant to the Notification No.13933/Pol.VII/2009 dated 23.02.2009 of Home (Pol.VII) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu and Notification No.228/10/2009- Page No.12 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch AVD-II dated 28.02.2009 of Government of India, the FIR in Crime No.15 of 2009 was re-registered by the respondent/CBI in RC 1(S)/2009/SCB/CHN. On conclusion of investigation, the respondent/CBI filed charge sheet against the Advocates arraying them as A1 to A32 for offence under Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 332, 333, 353, 436 & 450 IPC and Section 3(1) & 4 of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Destruction & Loss) Act, 1992 on 12.01.2010 which was taken on file in P.R.C.No.8 of 2010 and further investigation continued.
(xiii)In the meanwhile, the Full Bench of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.2463 of 2010 and Crl.O.P.No.3698 of 2010 considering the rival submissions recording the event took place on 19.02.2009 and issued interim directions periodically, finally this Court on 25.04.2014 recording objections raised by the Advocates seeking proper investigation, directed the aggrieved Advocates to submit all documents, photographs, media clippings and other relevant materials which according to them will be helpful for unbiased further investigation to CBI. Thereafter, CBI immediately or atleast within two months from the date of receipt of the order copy and on the materials furnished by the Advocates, CBI to proceed with further investigation with all Page No.13 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch seriousness having regard to the observation made by the Court and file additional report on new materials and documents within a period of three months. On completion of further investigation, supplementary final report/additional final report adding two Advocates A33 and A34, filed before the trial Court on 27.09.2024 listing LW1 to LW262 and LD1 to LD255 and 16 Material Objects.
(xiv)With regard to commission and omission on the part of the Police personnel, who were present in the scene of occurrence, the investigation in RC 2(S)/2009/SCB/CHN initiated by CBI and on completion of investigation, five separate charge sheets filed before the learned Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, which were taken on file as C.C.Nos.622 to 626 of 2025.
4.The primary submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners are as follows:
Page No.14 of 59
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch
(i)The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court while disposing Crl.O.P.No.2463 of 2010 on 25.04.2014 in paragraph No.28 observed that the CBI would not create a situation, compelling this Court to transfer the investigation to some other agency and would proceed to investigate the matter without any favour or bias towards anyone. Contrary to the observation/direction of the Full Bench, the investigation conducted by CBI is tainted, biased, shabby and highly unsatisfactory. In the interim final report, very strange reasons unknown to law, incorporated with a motive against the legal fraternity. The interim final report is undoubtedly a mockery of investigation, substandard investigation, deliberately investigated in a biased manner and designed to harm the legal fraternity with false accusations. The entire incident videographed and telecasted live and repeat telecast by media which was viewed by the entire country. In contrary to the video clippings, the respondent/CBI filed this impugned interim final report against the petitioner and other Advocates with an intention to malign the entire legal fraternity.
(ii)He further submitted that the petitioners are the Members of the Bar holding various positions in the Association and in political organizations Page No.15 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch serving the general public, who came to rescue the innocents being attacked. The Advocates who sustained grievous injuries were roped in as though they are part of the unlawful assembly and final report filed against them. He further submitted that though 262 witnesses cited in the final report, majority of witnesses are Police personnels and Senior Police officers who are the reason and abettors to the attack on the Advocates. In fact the petitioners made specific allegations against four IPS officers who were present and issued orders for latti charge and assaulted innocent Advocates. Instead of making them as accused in RC 2(S)/2009/SCB/CHN, strangely shown as witnesses. The respondent teamed up with the Police personnels targeted innocent Advocates. In fact the Casualty Doctor attached to the Government Hospitals confirm stream of injured Advocates came to the casualty with injuries due to latti charge by the Police.
(iii)He further submitted that the then Additional Commissioner of Police mobilized the Quick Reaction Team, Special Action Group and the Police force in an unprecedented scale from various Police Stations, battalions, from Reserved Police Force and Armed Police Force, all stationed well before the attack, in and around the High Court Campus and were ready Page No.16 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch to charge, on the Advocates without any provocation or reason. In fact, majority of witnesses are Police personnels who admit they were present in the High Court Campus at the time of latti charge, but not made as accused. Strangely, only against five Police personnels cases registered, who are low rank personnels and made as scape goat, letting off Senior Police Officers. It is admitted by the respondent that both cases (RC 1(S)/2009/SCB/CHN and RC 2(S)/2009/SCB/CHN) arise out of the same incident on 19.02.2009, that being so, in RC 1(S)/2009/SCB/CHN, 34 Advocates arrayed as accused, on the other hand, in RC 2(S)/2009/SCB/CHN, five separate charge sheets against five individuals, for the same cause of action filed.
(iv)Learned counsel further submitted that on 19.02.2009, more than 100 practicing Advocates sustained grievous injuries and admitted in Government and private hospitals and several vehicles of the Advocates' badly damaged by the Police personnels, on the orders of senior Police officers. This aspect not considered, no investigating in this angle conducted. The continuation of further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., submitted, but no real further investigation conducted. On the other hand, the respondent re-examined already examined witnesses namely C.Jayakodi and Page No.17 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch R.Kannappan (LW26 & LW27) and collected the Full Bench order dated 25.04.2014. The direction of the Full Bench was to find the real culprits including the role played by the Senior Police officials who were present issued orders and instrumental in the attack on the Advocates. In fact, the Full Bench named four IPS Officers, instead of conducting investigation as pointed by the Full Bench, in total disregard, no charge sheet against these IPS officers filed, on the contrary respondent roped in two more Advocates as accused.
(v)He further submitted that though the case was taken on file in the year 2010, the same is pending till now. On the question of delay, the Hon'ble Apex Court in plethora of judgments held that from the point of registration of the case, till conclusion of trial, there should be no laxity and if there is any delay, at any stage, it would amount to violation of fundamental right, a weapon of harassment and the lame prosecution is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. Here, the pendency of the above case, caused mental agony to the Advocates of the nobel profession for the past 15 years. In several cases, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that right to fair and speedy trial is an integral part of Article 21 of Constitution of India. He further submitted that the case against the co-accused namely A11 & A28 quashed by this Court in Page No.18 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch Crl.O.P.No.21568 of 2023 on 04.11.2024 and Crl.O.P.No.7407 of 2019 on 29.07.2024.
(vi)The learned counsel further submitted that unless the final report is set aside and full-fledged de novo investigation is ordered, truth will not come out. The unprecedented gory incident attacking innocent legal fraternity like the petitioner will not get justice, further Senior Police officers the abettors to the attack will go scot free confirming their belief that they are above the law and no one can question that action will become a reality.
5.In support of their submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the following decisions:
(i)In Hussainara Khatoon and others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar reported in (1980) 1 SCC 81, the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that 'in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial'. Further referring to Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India reported in (1978) 1 SCC 248 held that 'Article 21 confers a fundamental right of every person not to be deprived of his life and liberty except in accordance with the procedure prescribed in law and it is not enough to constitute compliance Page No.19 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch with the requirement of that Article that some semblance of a procedure to be prescribed by law, but that the procedure should be “reasonable, fair or just”.
If a person is deprived of his liberty under a procedure which is not “reasonable, fair or just”, such deprivation would be violative of his fundamental right under Article 21.'
(ii)In Rakesh Saxena v. State through C.B.I., reported in 1986 (Supp) SCC 505 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that 'the trial is bound to occupy the time of the court of first instance for not less that two or three years in view of the complicated nature of the case and even then, it is extremely doubtful whether it will at all result in conviction, no useful purpose will be served by allowing the prosecutions to continue.'
(iii)In Srinivas Gopal v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh (Now State) reported in (1988) 4 SCC 36 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that 'Quick justice is a sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. Keeping a person in suspended animation for 9½ years without any cause at all-and none was indicated before the learned Magistrate or before the High Court or before us, cannot be with the spirit of the procedure established by law.' Page No.20 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch
(iv)In S.G.Nain v. Union of India reported in 1992 CRI.L.J. 560, for the point that pendency of case for almost 14 years and on the facts of the case, it is difficult rather impossible to arrange a fair trial after such a long time lapse. Though appeal pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court for 11 years, but that is not a ground to permit a stale-prosecution to go on and quashed the complaint.
(v)In P.Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka reported in (2002) 4 SCC 578 the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that 'No person shall be deprived of his life or his personal liberty except according to procedure established by law-declares Article 21 of the Constitution. Life and liberty, the words employed in shaping Article 21, by the Founding Fathers of the Constitution, are not to be read narrowly in the sense drearily dictated by dictionaries, they are organic terms to be construed meaningfully. When the Constitution is found to be at stake and the Fundamental Rights of citizens/persons are under fire, to restore them to their position and uphold the Constitution and the Rule of Law.' Page No.21 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch
(vi)In Moti Lal Saraf v. State of J & K and another reported in (2006) 10 SCC 560 the Hon'ble Apex Court held in paragraph Nos.44, 45 & 51 are as follows:
“44.A Constitution Bench of this Court has in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab [(1994) 3 SCC 569 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 899] mentioned that the right to a speedy trial is a derivation from a provision of Magna Carta. This principle has also been incorporated into the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 and from there into the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America which reads, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.…”. It may be pointed out, in this connection, that there is a Federal Act of 1974 called “the Speedy Trial Act” establishing a set of time-limits for carrying out the major events e.g. information, indictment, arraignment, in the prosecution of criminal cases.
45.In this case, this Court further observed as under:
(Kartar Singh case [(1994) 3 SCC 569 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 899] , SCC p. 638, para 85) “85. The right to a speedy trial is not only an important safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration, to minimise anxiety and concern accompanying the accusation and to limit the possibility of impairing the ability of an accused to defend himself but also there is a societal interest in providing a speedy trial. This right has been Page No.22 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch actuated in the recent past and the courts have laid down a series of decisions opening up new vistas of fundamental rights. In fact, lot of cases are coming before the courts for quashing of proceedings on the ground of inordinate and undue delay stating that the invocation of this right even need not await formal indictment or charge.”
51.The purpose of right to a speedy trial is intended to avoid oppression and prevent delay by imposing on the courts and on the prosecution an obligation to proceed with reasonable dispatch.”
(vii)Further placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
(viii)He placed reliance on the orders of this Court in Crl.O.P.Nos.7407 of 2019 & 21568 of 2023, dated 29.07.2024 & 04.11.2024 wherein this Court had quashed the proceedings against the co-accused/A11 & A28 on the ground that the witnesses might have identified them from the pictures released in media, photographs and in TV news footage, but none of the witnesses have attributed any overtact on them apart from identifying them and merely speaking about their presence.
Page No.23 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch
6.Making the submissions and relying upon the decisions, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that continuation of the prosecution against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of Court and prays for quashing of the proceedings.
7.Learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases filed counter in Crl.O.P.No.5101 of 2019 submitting that the petitioner/A13 was a member in the unlawful assembly in front of B4 High Court Police Station, present at the time of setting fire to it. He pelted stones on the Police and his role is evident from the still photograph Nos.1658, 1659, 1692, 1693 & 1694 of Anandavikatan, WIN TV video, Jaya TV video and supported by oral evidence of LW182/Velmurugan, Secretary, MHAA, LW197/Angusamy, SI/IS, LW209/Vengeeswaran, LW202/Ratinavel, SUN TV Reporter, LW185/Brahma, Jaya TV Reporter, LW200/Praveen Philip, WIN TV Reporter, LW182/V.Kannadasan, Special Public Prosecutor, LW250/Swaminathan, Police Videographer and LW26/C.Jayakodi, Inspector.
8.He further submitted that LW26/C.Jayakodi, Inspector of Police, B2 Esplanade Police Station (Crime), Chennai stated that mob of Advocates Page No.24 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch indulged in violent activities and started pelting stones against the Police. The Advocates abused and shouted at the Police from the link bridge between the first floor of the Family Court and in the link bridge between the Small Causes Court and City Civil Court. She identifies the petitioner from WIN TV video recording and the Police video recording. LW171/V.Kannadasan states that the petitioner was among the mob of Advocates who broke open the Police Station, brought the records and other properties from there and he also identified in the street photographs. LW182/M.Velmurugan, Advocate and Secretary of Madras High Court Advocate Association saw some vehicles and articles on fire in front of the Police Station and fire engine came near the Police Station stopped and the pelted stones on it and assembly of the Advocates near the Police Station confirmed by him by viewing the Police video, SUN TV, WIN TV, Jaya TV. LW185/R.Brahma, a Reporter of Jaya TV, LW200/B.Praveen Philip, a Reporter of WIN TV, LW202/P.Rathinavel, a Reporter of SUN TV all identified the presence of the petitioner in the video clippings. LW197/S.Angusamy, Sub Inspector of Police, Egmore Police Station has identified the petitioner. LW209/Vengeeswaran, Driver of R.C.Paul Kanagaraj, President of MHAA and LW242/V.Kanakaraj, Advocate Clerk in High Court had seen him setting fire to two wheelers and burning of Page No.25 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch case properties and records in front of the Police Station. Thus, there are ample evidence and materials against the petitioner to proceed.
9.Learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases filed counter in Crl.O.P.No.9174 of 2025 submitting that there are evidence and materials against the petitioners/A33 & A34 that they raised slogans and abused Police personnels. The witness R.Kannappan had seen the petitioners destroying Government properties and pelting stones on Police personnel. The 1st petitioner was leading a group of Advocates at B4 High Court Police Station. The allegation of favourtism towards the Senior Police Officers is baseless and unsubstantiated. Every material fact carefully analyzed and final report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C filed. He further submitted that the delay of progress in trial is due to repeated adjournments sought by the petitioners and co-accused and the interim applications filed by them before the trial Court. Added to it, some of the accused obtained stay of trial, hence, the delay to be attributed to the petitioners, not against the respondent. In this case, after filing of interim final report, a supplementary charge sheet filed against the petitioners who are A33 & A34 recently on 01.10.2024, hence, they cannot raise the ground of delay for quashing.
Page No.26 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch
10.Learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases filed counter in Crl.O.P.No.8150 of 2025 submitting that after completion of investigation, on 12.01.2010 a charge sheet was filed before the trial Court against 32 accused persons wherein the petitioners are arrayed as A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A10, A12, A15, A16, A17, A18, A21, A22, A24, A25, A26, A27, A29, A31 & A32. The respondent conducted a comprehensive, impartial and unbiased investigation strictly in accordance with law. The allegation of the petitioners that favourtism towards the Senior Police officers is baseless and unsubstantiated. The delay is only attributed to the conduct of the petitioners and co-accused. The petitioners have not challenged the case on merits in the petition rather sought quashing on the ground of delay in proceedings which is unknown to the legal jurisprudence. The petitioners have every opportunity to defend and challenge the evidence presented by the prosecution during the trial by due process of law. The witnesses identified the petitioners' presence in the scene of occurrence and their overtact, photographs and video clippings confirmed active role played by the petitioners as part of the unlawful assembly in causing damage and burning of the Police Station. Page No.27 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch
11.Learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases filed counter in Crl.O.P.No.26343 of 2024 submitting that during investigation the petitioner/A14 Member of the unlawful assembly, who attacked the Police by pelting stones and indulged in ransacking B4 High Court Police Station, set fire and caused loss and damage to the Police Station. The petitioner's overtact is established by still photograph published in Anandavikatan and The Hindu. The Material Objects MO7 & MO9 contain still photographs of the incident happened on 19.02.2009. The witnesses shown more than one photograph of the petitioner to draw out a confirmation to the identity of the accused. LW171V.Kannadasan and LW182/M.Velmurugan were present in the scene of occurrence on 19.02.2009 and witnessed the damage caused by the unruly Advocates and they identified the petitioner through the still photographs and videographs. At this stage, suspicion of commission of offence is sufficient for charge framing and rest of the issues can be considered during trial.
12.He further submitted that the decisions referred by the petitioners are primarily on the ground of delay. It is true that charge sheet in this case filed Page No.28 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch in the year 2010, for the past 15 years, the case not allowed to progress due to obstacles created by the petitioners by filing barrage of petitions before the trial Court and before this Court. In some petitions, stay granted, hence, the prosecution is not the reason for delay. He fairly submitted that pendency and protraction of the case before the trial Court will do more harm than doing any good. Now due to passage of time, the incident has now sank in oblivion. The Black Day 19th February has no relevance. Now the Advocates are attending to work, Courts are functioning normally, Advocates realized unfortunate event never to have happened. Considering the sufferings and hardship of the Advocates, the 19th February incident is an ignominy and it is more than 15 years from the date of incident and filing of charge sheet, this Court can pass appropriate orders.
13.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that in this case, unfortunate incident took place on 19.02.2009 in the history and annals of High Court of Madras (names of the Advocates shown as accused are not mentioned, consciously not to further cause embarrassment to them). A preclude to the incident on 19.02.2009 will throw some light as to why such catastrophe happened. Everyone, be it Advocate, litigants, staff, Page No.29 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch Judicial Officers, Policemen and even a Judge of the High Court got hurt everyone were found running helter-skelter. The entire place turned a war zone and it was under nobody's control. The incident took place on 19.02.2009 was not a one day affair, it was brewing for some time. An uneasy calm prevailing for some time. The records show that in W.P.No.3197 of 2007 this Court directed that a Police Station shall be maintained with sanctioned strength of 252 Police Personnel at all times. Of these 252 Personnel, 132 are Armed Reserve Police Personnel, further in case of requirement, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Flower Bazaar Police Station can deploy more Armed Reserve personnel apart from the existing strength. The Government of India issued guidelines on 31.05.2007 for security of High Courts and Subordinate Courts in the Country, after the Mumbai blasts, directions issued by Government of India to the Chief Secretary on 17.11.2008 to review security arrangments in the High Courts and other Courts. The Security Committee of High Court of Madras reviewed the security system and as per the revised security arrangement, a Static Armed Guard of 1 and 4 posted at all entrances to the High Court campus for effective checking against any unauthorized entry into the High Court campus. In January 2008, while reviewing the security of the Madras High Court, a proposal presented by the Page No.30 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch Madras City Police to the Committee of judges which are as follows:
(1) Static Armed Guards at all entrances, (2) a fully armed Quick Reaction Team with one SI and ten Police Personnel per shift, (3) availability of suitable reinforcement of security personnel when sensitive cases are being heard, (4) a permanent picket of the State Police under the charge of an officer of appropriate rank to be located within or near the High Court premises to deal with traffic as well as law and order situation, (5) provision for striking reserve and High Court Zone should be declared as a High Security Zone.
14.The proposal envisaging the deployment of 451 personnel was approved by the Committee of Judges in their proceedings dated 28.01.2008. It took one full year to complete the formalities of issuance of ID cards by various Advocate Associations to their members. The Security Scheme was introduced through a simple ceremony presided over by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice on 23.01.2009. A Quick Reaction Team headed by an Officer was positioned inside the Madras High Court premises from 28.01.2009 when the new scheme became fully operational. The Police were authorized to ask for ID cards of Advocates and check the entry of every Advocate and persons Page No.31 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch accompanying him. The vehicles and luggages were also permitted to be checked. This new security system created resentment among lawyers and consequent tension with the Police Personnel.
15.There was continuous tension inside the Madras High Court campus from November 2008 since there was meetings, demonstrations inside the campus showing solidarity for Tamil Elam. The Advocates boycotted the Courts on 29.01.2009, staged demonstrations and wanted to pay homage to K.Muthukumar who committed self-immolation in support of the cause of Tamil Elam. When the Police tried to intervene, there was commotion and a case in Crime No.76 of 2009 of G3 Kilpauk Police Station registered for offence under Sections 143, 292(b), 353 and 506 IPC against the Advocates.
16.On 29.01.2009, some Advocates entered the Court Hall of Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice around 10.40 hours and asked the Advocates present in the Court Hall to join them in their boycott. They entered V Court, shouted slogans and disrupted the proceedings. On the same day, a group of lawyers attacked the Bank of Ceylon in Kilpauk, FIR in Crime No.18 of 2009 under Sections 143, 144, 149 and 336 IPC was registered in G3 Kilpauk Police Page No.32 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch Station against the Advocates. On 30.01.2009, a group of Advocates conducted a meeting in the High Court premises and indulged in picketing near the entrance of the High Court. A case in Crime No.7 of 2009 was registered in B4 High Court Police Station under Sections 143, 147 and 332 IPC against the Advocates. Similarly, a case in Crime No.8 of 2009 registered under Sections 147, 294(b), 427 r/w. 506(ii) IPC r/w. Section 3 of TNPPDL Act against the Advocates for damaging the Door Frame Metal Detector (DFMD) which was erected to check the visitors.
17.In W.P.No.7646 of 2006, the First Bench of this Court already banned all kind of political activities within the High Court premises and empowered the Police to deal with any violation. On 11.02.2009, about 100 Advocates took out procession shouting slogans to end the war in Srilanka. In this connection, a case in Crime No.89 of 2009 registered in B2 Esplanade Police Station under Sections 143, 188 and 285 IPC. For a similar violation, a case in Crime No.93 of 2009 for the offence under Sections 143, 188 and 285 IPC registered on 12.02.2009. A group of Advocates tried to lay siege to the Army Headquarters protesting against the Indian Army giving assistance to the Srilankan Government and in this regard, a Crime No.98 of 2009 under Page No.33 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch Section 151 IPC registered by D7 Government Estate Police Station.
18.The Advocates of High Court of Madras called for strike boycotting the Court proceedings from 29.01.2009 which continued till 18.02.2009 demanding ceasefire of the war on Srilankan Tamils by the Srilankan Army. On 04.02.2009 some Advocates detained in connection with burning of an effigy near the Aavin gate of High Court of Madras. A case in Crime No.73 of 2009 under Sections 147, 143, 188, 286 IPC r/w. 3(1) of TNPPDL Act registered at B2 Esplanade Police Station and also a case in Crime No.74 of 2009 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 448, 324, 307, 506(ii) IPC r/w. 3(1) of TNPPDL Act registered at B2 Esplanade Police Station. The detained agitating members damaged the Police vehicle and a case in Crime No.,75 of 2009 under Sections 147, 332, 353, 354, 506(ii) IPC and 3(1) of TNPPDL Act registered at B2 Esplanade Police Station. The detainees were taken to the residence of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, GT Court at Saidapet for remand. Again there was a group of 50 Advocates who waylaid the escort party and damaged the escort Police vehicle and prevented production of the detainees before the Remanding Magistrate. A scuffle occurred between the Advocates and Police resulting in registration of case in Crime No.25 of 2009 under Page No.34 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch Sections 147, 148, 341, 332, 353, 225, 427, 506(i) IPC r/w. 3(1) of TNPPDL Act at J4 Kotturpuram Police Station. The Acting Chief Metropolitan Magistrate came over to Rajarathinam Stadium remanded and later released them on bail. The boycott of Advocates in support of Srilankan Tamils ended on 17.02.2009. On 18.02.2009, against the proposed Amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure, boycott call given.
19.On 17.02.2009, Dr.Subramaniam Swamy in connection with Chidambaram temple case came to High Court to argue the case as party-in- person before Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.K.Mishra and Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.Chandru. Around 11.45 a.m., some agitating lawyers entered the Court hall of Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.K.Mishra Bench and started abusing and assaulting Dr.Subramaniam Swamy and thrown eggs on him under the direct gaze of the Hon'ble Judges. The then Registrar General immediately rushed to Court Hall No.3 from where noise was emanating. The Registrar (Administration) also rushed to the spot found about 20 persons wearing white shirt and black pant including three ladies reportedly Advocates prevented the Police Officials from entering the Court Hall No.3 and closed the door. The Judges frowned upon the misbehaviour of the lawyers and recorded the same in the order Page No.35 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch dated 17.02.2009. A copy of the order forwarded to the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice for appropriate action, the Registry was directed to send a copy of the said order to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India.
20.Pursuant to the incident on 17.02.2009, the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order) wrote a letter to the Registrar General pointing out the unsavory incident that took place in Court Hall No.3 and sought for the concurrence, to register a criminal case and set the criminal law in motion against the Advocates. The Registrar General by communication dated 18.02.2009 informed the Commissioner of Police that it is for the Police to register any criminal case on its own and the concurrence of the Registry is not required in law. In fact, the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice showed a list of seven to eight lawyers who are involved in the incident. The Police registered a case in Crime No.13 of 2009 under Sections 147, 451, 355, 353, 332, 506(ii) and 307 IPC r/w. Section 3(i) of TNPPDL Act at B4 High Court Police Station on 18.02.2009 against 14 named Advocates and 6 others, on the complaint by Mr.M.P.R.Khader Mohideen, Assistant Commissioner, High Court Range. The Police made efforts to arrest the accused named in Crime No.13 of 2009 and one of them was picked up from his residence.
Page No.36 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch
21.The case in which Dr.Subramaniam Swamy appeared on 17.02.2009 was adjourned to 19.02.2009, and to be taken before Court Hall No.3. On 18.02.2009 the Commissioner of Police attended a meeting convened by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice in his Chambers and while deploring the incident of 17.02.2009 asked the Police to be firm in taking action against the erring Advocates. The Commissioner of Police had specific intelligence input from the Intelligence Section of the City Police and the State Special Branch CID that the Advocates who were involved in the incident on 17.02.2009 in Court Hall No.3 would create serious problems again when Dr.Subramaniam Swamy was scheduled to visit High Court in connection with a case before the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice and in Court Hall No.21 on 19.02.2009. The Commissioner of Police arranged heavy Police guard in the High Court campus in order to ensure no untoward incident takes place on 19.02.2009. Dr.Subramaniam Swamy appeared before the Court presided by Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice as well as Court Hall No.21 on 19.02.2009 and left the High Court campus around 11.30 a.m.
22.The Joint Commissioner of Police withdrew Police force from the High Court campus and stationed in B2 Esplanade Police Station situated Page No.37 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch abutting the High Court campus for debriefing, while being so at about 12.00 noon two Advocates came to B2 Esplanade Police Station and asked for the list of Advocates named in Crime No.13 of 2009 and informed that the named Advocates are willing to surrender themselves and the Police not to visit their house or office and cause embarrassment to the named Advocates. The jurisdictional Joint Commissioner of Police dealt with the claim of surrender. The two Advocates promised to bring all the named accused positively for surrender, the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner of Police restrained arresting the accused in a haste. The debriefing of the police was withdrawn awaiting the surrender of the named Advocates. During that time, a group of Advocates lead by the Former President of the High Court Advocate Association in large number went to B4 High Court Police Station situated inside the High Court campus and represented that the accused named in Crime No.13 of 2009 ready to surrender. When the Police was to take them into custody, resistance shown by Advocates and they demanded arrest of Dr.Subramaniam Swamy as a pre-condition for their surrender. The jurisdictional Joint Commissioner of Police waiting in B2 Esplanade Police Station, rushed to B4 High Court Police Station with some Police strength. A case was registered against Dr.Subramaniam Swamy in Crime No.14 of 2009 under Section 3(1)(x) of Page No.38 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act read with Section 506(ii) IPC and a copy of the FIR in Crime No.14 of 2009 handed over to the Advocates, who thereafter made a turn around demanded arrest of Dr.Subramaniam Swamy as a pre-condition and refused to surrender. The jurisdictional Joint Commissioner of Police now caught in a fix, found the tension mounting and the Advocates involved in the incident on 17.02.2009 who had come there on the guise of surrender, started addressing the media and raising abusive slogans. Soon other Advocates joined them and obstructed the Police from taking them into Police van. It was at that time, the crowd became restive and started shouting at the Police using filthy language, a chappal was thrown at the Police, apart from throwing stones. The Police used mild force to chase away the Advocates and to guard them from pelting stones. In the meanwhile, the Advocates started gathering near the Family Court, Small Causes Court, link bridge started pelting stones randomly. At this point of time, one of the Judge of the High Court who attempted to intervene to pacify the mob got injured and taken to Hospital. The Police beefed up the Police strength and intensified the use of force. Thereafter on the instructions of the Commissioner of Police, the Police force near the B4 High Court Police Station withdrawn to B2 Esplanade Police Station. Taking Page No.39 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch advantage of the withdrawal, B4 High Court Police Station was set on fire. The steps taken to put down the fire and bring the situation under control all failed, the fire tender was attacked and not allowed to douse the fire, the mob ensured that the fire got engulfed and the entire Police Station burnt down. The Police fired tear gas, followed by latti charge, the Armed Reserve Police, Riot Police entered the High Court campus, latti charged whoever came across including the Advocates who were inside the Association room or inside the Subordinate Judges' Chambers, all were given latti blow including the staff and litigants. Thus the situation became combative and explosive.
23.The Police operation on 19.02.2009 in the High Court campus resulted in injuries to a High Court Judge, Subordinate Judges, Advocates, Court Staff, Media persons, public and others. The injured were taken to various Hospitals for treatment. The Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order), Additional Director General of Police (Intelligence), the Principal Secretary (Home), the Public Secretary and Chief Secretary all called to the Chambers of the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice around 18.40 hours and the Full Bench passed orders restraining the Police not to pick up any Advocate in connection with the cases registered and to release the persons, if Page No.40 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch taken in custody, ensure proper medical treatment is provided and compensation to be paid to the damaged vehicles. For this incident, a case in Crime No.,15 of 2009 under Sections 147, 353, 332, 450, 436 and 307 IPC r/w. Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act registered at B4 High Court Police Station on 19.02.2009 at 17.20 hours. On 20.02.2009 again some agitated Advocates set fire to the remaining materials within the Police Station and a case in Crime No.16 of 2009 under Sections 147, 436, 355 IPC r/w. Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act registered at B4 High Court Police Station. The Bolero jeep of the Divisional Fire Officer was set on fire on that day and a case in Crime No.113 of 2009 under Sections 143, 148, 341, 336, 332, 324, 285, 353, 506(i) IPC r/w. Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act registered at B2 Esplanade Police Station. The Cameraman of a private TV channel who was covering the incident was assaulted and his camera snatched. In this connection, a case in Crime No.17 of 2009 registered for the offence under Sections 143, 147, 188, 341, 323 and 394 IPC at B4 High Court Police Station and there was uneasy calm.
24.The narrative of the above cases is only to understand the trajectory of the events took place from January 2009. The restriction and frisking of Page No.41 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch Advocates entering the Court campus met with resistance fueled with protest showing solidarity to Tamil Elam cause, all compounded to the acrimonious situation. From the above narrative, it is clear that after the incident on 17.02.2009 the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice called the Commissioner of Police, gave instructions to bring the situation under control and to ensure that no untoward incident happens on 19.02.2009, Dr.Subramaniam Swamy attended the Court on 19.02.2009 and left the Court at 11.30 hours, there was an uneasy calm, waiting to explode. The arrest of one Advocate on 18.02.2009 triggered the issue and thereafter, a group of Advocates went to the Police Station in the guise of surrender, thereafter some of Advocates were taken forcibly to the van, which further added fuel to the fire and the situation exploded, use of force, raining of bricks and stones got intensified, the Quick Action Force, Rapid Action Force, Armed Reserve Force and the Police Personnel sourced from other Stations all got into action. It is seen the Police mobilized in strength well in advance, anticipating trouble some of the Police Personnel injured and the Police retorted by pelting stones on the Advocates and thereafter, Advocates chased away using force. This continued back and forth on three or four occasions. The gathering of Advocates declared as unlawful assembly, tear gas fired, proved ineffective and thereafter, latti Page No.42 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch charge ordered. The Armed Police Personnel attacked everyone coming on their sight, not differentiating anyone be it Advocate, litigant, public, Judge, Court staff and others. Finally, B4 High Court Police Station was set fire. On the intervention of Judges, injured were rushed to the Hospitals, took treatment in various Hospitals and the Doctors confirmed that there was stream of injured Advocates admitted in the Hospital for treatment. Some of the Police Personnel severely injured. In Suo motu W.P.(PIL).No.3335 of 2009 directions given, One Man Committee formed, it was confirmed that four Senior Police Officers in the IPS cadre present in the scene of occurrence and not taken any effective steps to restrain the excess use of Police force. This Court directed CBI to proceed with the investigation in RC 1(S)/2009/SCB/CHN registered against the Advocates and RC 2(S)/2009 registered against the Police Personnel.
25.The Advocates filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking a direction directing the CBI to conduct a fair and proper investigation in both cases. The Division Bench of this Court on the grievance of the Advocates that investigation not properly conducted, no action taken against top ranking IPS Officers who were present in the scene of occurrence directed appropriate Page No.43 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch action against them. This Court in suo motu W.P(PIL).No.3335 of 2009 gave specific direction to the CBI, but the respondent CBI victimized the affected Advocates and charge sheet filed against the Advocates in RC 1(S)/2009/SCB/CHN, on the contrary after investigation in RC 2(S)/2009/SCB/CHN, charge sheet filed against five Police Constables and nothing more. The grievance of the petitioners before this Court is that no fair and proper investigation by the CBI and in a haste, charge sheet filed against the petitioners. Further, the charge sheet filed in the year 2010 but no progress in the trial for more than 15 years. Due to the pendency of the case, Advocates not considered for any position or post, their career greatly affected, travel passport denied, affecting their fundamental right to travel, and their entire career prospects greatly affected.
26.Be that as it may, from the perusal of the statement of witnesses it is seen that the witnesses can be broadly classified as Police Personnel, Advocates, Press Reporters, Media Persons, Doctors, the Registrars and Officials of the High Court. On perusal of the statement of witnesses, it is seen that the injured Advocates immediately rushed to various Hospitals, given treatment, incident widely covered both by print and visual media. The Page No.44 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch incident which happened on 19.02.2009 is an unprecedented one in the annals of Madras High Court.
27.After the assault on Advocates on 19.02.2009, a shockwave of fear, humiliation resonated entire legal fraternity. The impact was such that all the Courts closed and the doors of justice closed to the public. The High Court could resume the work on 25.02.2009 and City Civil Court and Small Causes Court could resume the work only on 02.03.2009. The District Courts also closed, but started working shortly. The closure of the temple of justice even for a shortwhile confirms now the legal fraternity was greatly affected due to the incident.
28.The Advocates are looked in the Society placing them in high pedestal for the reason that they are the saviours for the unheard, stifled voices meek persons, underprivileged and marginalized. The Advocates are vibrant group who espouse the cause of the public and they are conscious keepers fight for the rights of the citizen. The Advocates holding demonstrations, showing protest for the Tamil Elam cause was going on for some time and restrictive steps taken by the Registry of this Court, thereafter Police force Page No.45 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch increased, entry through the gates restricted, which all infuriated the Advocates. There were regular demonstrations, protest, agitations and show of force. The registering of several cases confirm that all was not well for quite some time. The Advocates, a politically vibrant group. On 17.02.2009 there was an incident showing protest and use of force by group of Advocates against Dr.Subramaniam Swamy. On that day, the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order) sent a communication to the Registrar General and a meeting was called by the then Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice instructed the Police to take all steps under their command to ensure peace and safety to one and all inside the High Court campus. Following the instructions, the Police taken steps but the steps appears to be disproportionate. The arrest of one of the Advocate on 18.02.2009 and the visit of Dr.Subramaniam Swamy on 19.02.2009 further added to the combative situation and agitated Advocates exploded. There was wordy altercation, abuse, raining of bricks and stones and finally B4 High Court Police Station set fire and damaged. To bring the situation under control, Police used force. In the process, many Advocates got injured and vehicles damaged, added to it, now they are facing prosecution.
29.The contention of the Police is that the situation required needed use of force otherwise possibility of spilling over of violence to other places and Page No.46 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch further damage was imminent. The contention of the Advocates is that mobilizing of such huge force of unprecedented scale would prove, attack on Advocates are by the Police. Whatever may be justification by both Police and Advocates for their action and reaction, the gory incident cannot be justified. The imprint of the incident which happened on 19.02.2009 has now slowly rescinded. The 19th February 2009 was declared as 'Black Day'. Earlier there was complete boycott which is now pushed to oblivion and normal functioning of the Court continues without any obstacle and the Advocates are attending the Courts except for a symbolic protest.
30.The Advocates are the torch bearers to the society in safeguarding the fundamental rights and it is the only Profession which is given primacy in the Constitution of India. Our forefathers who fought for the independence mostly are Advocates/Lawyers. Even during the dark days in the history of Nation, it is the Advocates who stood up, who were in forefront fighting for justice, it is a thin line dividing show of protest, aggression and force. In this case, this thin line vanished on 19.02.2009 and violence broke. This excessiveness might be, by a few but it had affected the entire legal fraternity. The Police and the Advocates by Profession have some inherent friction Page No.47 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch between them due to nature of their duty and profession but this might not lead to a clash. In any event, clash erupted on 19.02.2009 cannot be justified. But now after all these years both of them buried their hatchet and have started moving forward. It is to be seen that in this case the identification of the persons who are facing prosecution are primarily based on the photographs published in media both visual and print. The identification done by Advocates, Police Personnel and media are persons all subjective. There is no reason or justification to confirm how they were able to put a name to the face, when most of the photographs found blurred. There is no certificate under the Information Technology Act. Further, no identification parade, with these inherent flaws, identifying petitioners Advocates becomes doubtful. Hence, the identification has no significance, the root of the case gets snapped and foundational facts become shaky and the structure bound to collapse. Further in this case neither the prosecution nor the affected persons facing prosecution are interested in continuing with the case. In this case, FIR registered in the year 2009, charge sheet filed in the year 2010, even after 15 years the trial is yet to commence. Thus, there is an inordinate delay. The Apex Court time and again held that right to speedy trial in all criminal prosecution is an inalienable right under Article 21 of the Constitution and quashed the Page No.48 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch proceedings.
31.The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R.Muthukrishnan v. The Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature of Madras reported in AIR 2019 SC 849 in paragraph No.57 held the disciplinary action taken against the Advocates in the aftermath of the agitation, which is as follows:
“57.In Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India and Anr. (supra) while holding that advocates have no right to go on 'strike', the Court observed:
20.It was expected that having known the well-
settled law and having seen that repeated strikes and boycotts have shaken the confidence of the public in the legal profession and affected the administration of justice, there would be self-regulation. The abovementioned interim order was passed in the hope that with self-restraint and self-regulation the lawyers would retrieve their profession from lost social respect. The hope has not fructified. Unfortunately, strikes and boycott calls are becoming a frequent spectacle.
Strikes, boycott calls, and even unruly and unbecoming conduct are becoming a frequent spectacle. On the slightest pretense strikes and/or boycott calls are resorted to. The judicial system is being held to ransom. Administration of law and justice is threatened. The rule of law is undermined.
33. The only exception to the general rule set out above appears to be the item (III). We accept that in such cases a strong protest must be lodged. We remain Page No.49 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch of the view that strikes are illegal and that courts must now take a very serious view of strikes and calls for boycott. However, as stated above, lawyers are part and parcel of the system of administration of justice. A protest on an issue involving dignity, integrity, and independence of the Bar and judiciary, provided it does not exceed one day, may be overlooked by courts, who may turn a blind eye for that one day.”
32.In paragraph No.63 (R.Muthukrishnan Case), the Hon'ble Apex Court referring to the decision of Mohit Chowdhary, Advocate, In Re reported in (2017) 16 SCC 78, had extracted the ethics of legal practice, which is as follows:
“20.Warvelle's Legal Ethics, 2nd Edn. at p.182 sets out the obligation of a lawyer as:
“A lawyer is under obligation to do nothing that shall detract from the dignity of the court, of which he is himself a sworn officer and assistant. He should at all times pay deferential respect to the Judge, and scrupulously observe the decorum of the courtroom”.”
33.The Hon'ble Apex Court in Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K.Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and another reported in (2024) 8 SCC 430 held that “Legal profession being sui generis: The legal Page No.50 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch profession cannot be equated with any other traditional professions. It is not commercial in nature but is essentially a service oriented, noble profession. It cannot be gainsaid that the role of advocates is indispensable in the justice delivery system. An evolution of jurisprudence to keep our Constitution vibrant is possible only with the positive contribution of the advocates. The advocates are expected to be fearless and independent for protecting the rights of citizens, for upholding the Rule of Law and also for protecting the independence of judiciary.” and paragraph No.35 is extracted as follows:
“35.The legal profession is different from the other professions also for the reason that what the advocates do, affects not only an individual but the entire administration of justice, which is the foundation of the civilised society. It must be remembered that the legal profession is a solemn and serious profession. It has always been held in very high esteem because of the stellar role played by the stalwarts in the profession to strengthen the judicial system in the country. Their services in making the judicial system efficient, effective and credible, and in creating a strong and impartial judiciary, which is one of the three pillars of the Democracy, could not be compared with the services rendered by other professionals. Therefore, having regard to the role, status and duties of the advocates as the professionals, we are of the opinion that the Page No.51 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch legal profession is sui generis i.e. unique in nature and cannot be compared with any other profession.”
34.Further, in paragraph No.32 of Bar of Indian Lawyers case, the Hon'ble Apex Court extracted R.Muthukrishnan case, which is as follows:
“32. This Court in R. Muthukrishnan v. High Court of Madras [R. Muthukrishnan v. High Court of Madras, (2019) 16 SCC 407 : (2020) 2 SCC (Civ) 502 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 300], delineating the unique nature of the legal profession and of the services rendered by the lawyers, observed thus : (SCC pp. 424- 26, paras 16-22) “16. The legal profession cannot be equated with any other traditional professions. It is not commercial in nature and is a noble one considering the nature of duties to be performed and its impact on the society. The independence of the Bar and autonomy of the Bar Council has been ensured statutorily in order to preserve the very democracy itself and to ensure that judiciary remains strong. Where the Bar has not performed the duty independently and has become a sycophant that ultimately results in the denigrating of the judicial system and judiciary itself. There cannot be existence of a strong judicial system without an independent Bar.
17. It cannot be gainsaid that lawyers have contributed in the struggle for independence of the nation. They have helped in the framing of the Constitution of India and have helped the courts in evolving jurisprudence by doing hard labour and research work. The nobility of the legal system is to Page No.52 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch be ensured at all costs so that the Constitution remains vibrant and to expand its interpretation so as to meet new challenges.
18. It is basically the lawyers who bring the cause to the Court are supposed to protect the rights of individuals of equality and freedom as constitutionally envisaged and to ensure the country is governed by the rule of law. Considering the significance of the Bar in maintaining the rule of law, right to be treated equally and enforcement of various other fundamental rights, and to ensure that various institutions work within their parameters, its independence becomes imperative and cannot be compromised. The lawyers are supposed to be fearless and independent in the protection of rights of litigants. What lawyers are supposed to protect, is the legal system and procedure of law of deciding the cases.
19. Role of the Bar in the legal system is significant. The Bar is supposed to be the spokesperson for the judiciary as Judges do not speak. People listen to the great lawyers and people are inspired by their thoughts. They are remembered and quoted with reverence. It is the duty of the Bar to protect honest Judges and not to ruin their reputation and at the same time to ensure that corrupt Judges are not spared. However, lawyers cannot go to the streets or go on strike except when democracy itself is in danger and the entire judicial system is at stake. In order to improve the system, they have to take recourse to the legally available methods by lodging complaint against corrupt Judges to the appropriate administrative authorities and not to level such allegation in the public. Corruption is intolerable in the judiciary.
20. The Bar is an integral part of the judicial administration. In order to ensure that judiciary Page No.53 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch remains an effective tool, it is absolutely necessary that the Bar and the Bench maintain dignity and decorum of each other. The mutual reverence is absolutely necessary. The Judges are to be respected by the Bar, they have in turn equally to respect the Bar, observance of mutual dignity, decorum of both is necessary and above all they have to maintain self-respect too.
21. It is the joint responsibility of the Bar and the Bench to ensure that equal justice is imparted to all and that nobody is deprived of justice due to economic reasons or social backwardness. The judgment rendered by a Judge is based upon the dint of hard work and quality of the arguments that are advanced before him by the lawyers. There is no room for arrogance either for a lawyer or for a Judge.
22. There is a fine balance between the Bar and the Bench that has to be maintained as the independence of the Judges and judiciary is supreme. The independence of the Bar is on equal footing, it cannot be ignored and compromised and if lawyers have the fear of the judiciary or from elsewhere, that is not conducive to the effectiveness of the judiciary itself, that would be self-
destructive.”
35.From the above quote and observation, no doubt the Advocate profession is sui generis, it carries conduct, conviction and responsibilities not only to the client and Courts, but to citizens and mankind. It would be Page No.54 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch apposite to remind the importance given by framers of Constitution in Article 22(1) which is extracted hereunder:
“22.(1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.”
36.The legal practitioner is the only profession given primacy in the Constitution of India, thus Advocate plays an important and pivotal role in shaping and safeguarding the rights of every person in the society.
37.It would be apposite to extract paragraph No.603 as observed by the Full Bench of this Court in its order dated 29.10.2009 in W.P.No.3335 of 2009 etc. batch, which is as follows:
“603.We have dealt with the issues, keeping in view the public interest, interest of the Police, interest of the lawyers and above all, interest of the Institution. Though, we have found fault with some of the officers, it should not be taken to mean that the whole Police Force is at fault. While we have found Page No.55 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch fault with certain Officers, in the same breath, we have also found fault with the lawyers for their continued boycotts and how it caused inconvenience to the public at large. We wish that Police and lawyers would bury their differences and rift in the interest of the public at large and in the interest of the Institution. Both the lawyers and Police, the two wings of the Institution should always work together for the administration of justice. Functioning of Courts and carrying on business of administration of justice depends upon the harmonious relation between the Police and lawyers. We wish that better counsel will prevail upon the Police and lawyers. We hope that Police and lawyers work hand in hand and promote better relationships. We also feel that it may be appropriate for the Police and lawyers to constitute their respective Committees both at State level/District level to resolve the differences in an amicable manner.” This observation is the reality which cannot be ignored.
38.In view of the above, the continuation of the case against the petitioners is nothing but whipping a dead horse. Taking the case as a whole based on the statement of witnesses and materials collected, it is suffice to say that it leads to a path of nowhere. Further the case is pending for 15 long years without any progress, is nothing but violative of fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this Court is inclined to quash Page No.56 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch the proceedings pending against the petitioners.
39.In the result, the Criminal Original Petitions stand allowed and the proceedings in P.R.C.No.8 of 2010 is quashed against all the petitioners/accused. The petitioners are acquitted of all charges. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
40.This Court appreciates the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases for their cooperation, presenting their cases conducively considering the welfare of legal fraternity and to give quietus to the issue.
27.11.2025 Speaking order/Non-speaking order Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No vv2 To
1.The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau Investigation, Page No.57 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch Special Crime Branch, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai-600090.
3.The Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases, Madras High Court.
Page No.58 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm ) Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019 batch M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2 Crl.O.P.Nos.5101 of 2019, 26343 of 2024, 8150 & 9174 of 2025 27.11.2025 Page No.59 of 59 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:31 pm )