Naam Tamilar Katchi chief Seeman
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Thursday quashed the proceedings of a private complaint of defamation filed by V. Varun Kumar, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tiruchi Range, against Naam Tamilar Katchi chief coordinator Seeman pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate IV, Tiruchi.
Justice L. Victoria Gowri observed that politicians’ right to criticise bureaucratic action was constitutionally protected. The line was crossed only where the law, strictly construed, was truly breached. Bureaucrats best vindicated institutional honour by exemplary investigation and neutrality, not by pre-cognisance shortcuts or symbolic prosecutions that could resemble attempts to curate public image.
The court observed that Magistrates must be vigilant custodians of the BNSS safeguards, conscious that criminal defamation at the threshold, if loosely entertained, could have a disproportionate chilling effect on democratic contestation.
The order of the Tiruchi Judicial Magistrate purporting to take cognisance for defamation under the BNS and issue process was set aside for non-compliance with Section 223 of the BNSS (requiring an opportunity of being heard before cognisance), procedural inversion amounting to taking cognisance twice and failure to undertake Section 225 of the BNSS (insisting on calibrated vigilance where jurisdiction and abuse-prevention concerns arise) screening commensurate with the facts placed.
Liberty was reserved to the complainant to reinstitute proceedings, strictly in accordance with law, subject to the following mandatory directions, the court held.
Democracy was sustained only when politicians could speak freely and bureaucrats could work fearlessly, each within constitutional discipline, the court observed.
The court was hearing the criminal revision petition filed by Mr. Seeman who sought setting aside of the proceedings of the private complaint pending against him.
Mr. Varun Kumar filed the defamation case when he was the Superintendent of Police, Tiruchi. He accused Mr. Seeman of making defamatory remarks about him and his family.
The petitioner, Mr. Seeman, said the private complaint did not mention or refer to any derogatory utterance by the petitioner. The reading of the allegations produced in the complaint was not sufficient to infer the intention of the petitioner to conclude that it amounted to a defamatory statement as claimed by Mr. Varun Kumar, he said.
The complaint filed by Mr. Varun Kumar was nothing but an abuse of the process of law, he said, adding that instead of rejecting the bald allegations, the Judicial Magistrate mechanically took cognisance bereft of materials.
Published – November 27, 2025 09:22 pm IST
