Police Can’t Summon Journalists Without Formal Case: Madras High Court Quashes Notice

The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) recently quashed a notice issued by the police to journalist Vimal Chinnappan, holding that the police had no authority to summon or question him in the absence of a registered criminal case.

The bench of Justice Sunder Mohan allowed a criminal original petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and set aside the notice issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Srivilliputhur Sub Division, Virudhunagar district.

The notice in question had been issued on October 26, 2025, under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It was stated to have been issued during the course of investigation in a 2023 case, which related to the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989. 

According to the police, while investigating the said crime, they had come across an article published by the petitioner in a journal. The article allegedly contained defamatory statements against the police, following which the second respondent issued a notice to the petitioner, forwarding a set of questions and seeking his explanation.

Challenging the notice, the petitioner contended that the investigation in the 2023 case had already been completed and that a final report had been filed. It was submitted that the notice did not disclose the case in connection with which the petitioner was being summoned, nor did it state whether he was being treated as an accused, witness or suspect.

The petitioner further argued that even assuming the article contained defamatory material, the police could not invoke their powers to summon him without registering a separate case. It was contended that allegations of defamation against the police could only be pursued through a private complaint, and that the impugned notice amounted to an abuse of process.

On behalf of the State, the Government Advocate fairly conceded that the investigation in the 2023 case had concluded and that cognizance had already been taken by the Special Court for SC/ST Act cases at Virudhunagar. It was also admitted that no separate criminal case had been registered against the petitioner in relation to the allegedly defamatory article.

Court noted that the notice issued to the petitioner contained as many as twelve questions, all of which primarily related to the publication of the article and the statements made therein against the police. Court observed that the notice was admittedly not connected to the 2023 case , as the investigation in that case had already been completed.

Justice Sunder Mohan held that if the petitioner was required for enquiry in any other matter, the respondents were duty-bound to refer to the crime number of such case. In the present case, no such case had been registered against the petitioner.

Court further examined the scope of Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and held that the provision merely specifies the circumstances under which a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant. It does not confer any power on the police to summon or question a person in the absence of a registered case.

Holding that the impugned notice was issued without authority of law, court quashed the same. However, it clarified that the order would not prevent the police from proceeding in accordance with law if any case was registered against the petitioner in the future and his presence was required for enquiry.

The petitioner was represented by advocate R. Karunanidhi, while the State was represented by Government Advocate K. Sanjai Gandhi.

Case Title: Vimal Chinnappan vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and another

Order Date: November 10, 2025

Bench: Justice Sunder Mohan