Madras High Court declines to quash FIR over judges' remarks.

Refusing to interfere in an ongoing cyber-crime probe, the Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition seeking to quash an FIR against a retired police officer accused of making highly derogatory remarks against judges on his YouTube channel.

Noting that the investigation is still at its "initial stage", Justice M. Nirmal Kumar declined to entertain the quashing petition filed by R. Varadaraj.

What are the allegations against petitioner?

The petitioner (Varadaraj) is a former police officer who currently practices as an advocate before the Madras High Court and serves as the President of a political party named "Nethaji Makkal Katchi".

The dispute relates to the content uploaded on his official YouTube channel, "Nethaji TV", having over 4.5 Lakh subscribers.

As per the prosecution’s case, the petitioner questioned the neutrality of Justice N. Senthilkumar, who had passed an order on October 3, 2025, constituting a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate the tragic stampede at a Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) rally in Tamil Nadu’s Karur district last year, which claimed 41 lives and injured several others.

The petitioner had alleged Justice Senthilkumar’s proximity to the DMK and criticised the judge’s remarks on actor-politician C. Joseph Vijay and his party TVK.

According to Varadaraj, he used his platform merely to criticize the investigation into the stampede and his commentary focused on the High Court's decisions to transfer the probe to SIT.

Appearing as a party-in-person, the petitioner argued that his comments were restricted to the incident and did not attack the private lives of any judges.

Claiming protection under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution (freedom of speech), he alleged that the previous government harbored hostility toward his channel and foisted a false case against him.

Why State opposed his plea?

Strongly opposing the quash petition, the Government Advocate representing the State submitted that the YouTube comments were not a mere critique of a judicial order.

The State argued that the videos were highly defamatory and derogatory on the face of it, containing unwarranted personal allegations against both a sitting Judge and a retired Judge.

"Expressing a view on a subject is distinct from making personal remarks concerning the personal conduct of an individual and taking shelter under the right to freedom of speech and expression" the State argued.

During the proceedings, the Court's attention was drawn towards a hurdle in the investigation. The police had seized the petitioner's mobile phone, but the Forensic Sciences Department was unable to unlock the device because it was secured with a facial lock.

The state submitted that the phone needed to be unlocked to conclusively establish whether the petitioner made the statements and from which device the contentious contents were uploaded.

Yielding to this argument, the petitioner agreed to appear before the Director of the Forensic Sciences Department on June 23, 2026, in the presence of the investigating police, to unlock the mobile phone for forensic examination.

Given the petitioner's undertaking and the preliminary status of the probe, the Court found no grounds to quash the proceedings and dismissed the criminal original petition.

Case Title: R. Varadaraj v The State of Tamil Nadu

Tags: