‘Criminal Process Is Not a Reputation-Laundering Arena’: Madras HC Quashes Defamation Case Against Seeman

The Madras High Court has cautioned that “the criminal process is not a reputation-laundering arena” of the police, holding that when criticism, be it “fair or foul”, arises from official action, the first institutional response of police leadership must be better policing and better investigations, not strategic private prosecutions against political opponents.

The bench of Justice L. Victoria Gowri made the observation while setting aside the Tiruchirappalli Judicial Magistrate’s order taking cognizance of a defamation complaint filed by IPS officer Varun Kumar against Naam Tamilar Katchi chief coordinator Seeman.

"Bureaucrats best vindicate institutional honour by exemplary investigation and neutrality, not by pre-cognisance shortcuts or symbolic prosecutions that can resemble attempts to curate public image," Justice Gowri remarked. 

IPS officer Kumar alleged that Seeman, during a press interaction on July 11, 2024, made caste-based defamatory remarks against him, including calling him “casteist by birth” and suggesting that he carried an in-built caste bias while discharging official duties. The complaint stated that these comments were made immediately after the arrest of NTK functionary “Sattai” Durai Murugan and were widely circulated on television, social media and YouTube, allegedly damaging the officer’s reputation among colleagues, family and the public.

Justice Gowri found that the Magistrate had violated the mandatory procedure under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which requires a meaningful pre-cognizance opportunity of hearing to the proposed accused.

Justice Gowri noted that the Magistrate first recorded the complainant’s sworn statements and marked exhibits, and immediately proceeded to issue summons to Seeman, which in law amounted to taking cognizance, but only thereafter received and considered his objections. This, the court held, inverted the statutory sequence and resulted in cognizance being taken twice.

The judge observed that Section 223 BNSS introduced a substantive safeguard, and could not be reduced to an empty formality. It said that a notice under Section 223, along with all complaint materials and sworn statements, ought to have been issued to Seeman before any decision to proceed was made. Summons, which invoke the court’s coercive jurisdiction, can only follow cognizance, not precede it.

Justice Gowri also recorded that since the accused resided outside the Magistrate’s jurisdiction, Section 225 BNSS required a calibrated inquiry to rule out forum shopping and prevent multiple criminal proceedings on the same set of facts. No such inquiry was reflected in the Magistrate’s order, reinforcing the conclusion that the statutory safeguards had not been honoured.

She further noted the politically charged context in which the complaint arose, involving arrests and action against NTK members, and held that criminal law must not be employed in a manner that chills political speech.

The judge said that while politicians must avoid personal vilification, criticism of official conduct enjoys strong constitutional protection, and overbroad criminal processes initiated by bureaucrats risk creating a systemic chilling effect on free political expression.

While Justice Gowri did not conclusively rule on whether the IPS officer required prior permission under the All India Services (Conduct) Rules before initiating the complaint, it cautioned Magistrates to apply heightened scrutiny where a complaint intertwines personal reputation with official designation, to ensure that the criminal forum is not used for “institutional image-management".

Holding that the Magistrate’s order was vitiated for non-compliance with Section 223 BNSS alone, the High Court set aside the cognizance order and left it open to the complainant to reinstitute proceedings strictly in accordance with the statutory sequence.

Case Title: Seeman vs. Varun Kumar

Order Date: November 27, 2025

Bench: Justice L. Victoria Gowri