The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) last week quashed a police notice issued to a journalist, holding that the police had no authority to summon or question him in the absence of a registered criminal case.
Cancelling a police notice that had been sent to journalist Vimal Chinnappan, the court said, “Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS only specifies the circumstances under which a Police Officer may arrest a person without a warrant and does not empower the respondents to summon or question the petitioner in the absence of any case registered against him. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned notice.”
Since no case was filed against him, the court ruled that the police action was invalid and therefore struck down the notice.
Justice Sunder Mohan of the Madras High Court considered a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after reviewing it, set aside the notice issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police from the Srivilliputhur Sub Division in Virudhunagar district.
The notice was dated October 26, 2025, and was issued under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). Officials claimed it was connected to an investigation in a case registered back in 2023.
That case involved charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) specifically Sections 294(b) (obscene acts/words in public), 323 (causing hurt), and 506(i) (criminal intimidation). It also included offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, namely Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va), which deal with acts of insult, intimidation, or violence against members of SC/ST communities.
While looking into the 2023 case, the police said they found an article written by the petitioner and published in a journal. They claimed that this article included remarks that were defamatory towards the police. Because of this, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the second respondent in the case, sent a notice to the journalist. The notice contained a list of questions and asked him to provide an explanation for what he had written.
The petitioner argued against the police notice by pointing out that the investigation in the 2023 case was already finished and a final report had been submitted.
He further stated that the notice did not clearly mention which case it was connected to, nor did it explain whether he was being called as an accused person, a witness, or a suspect.
The petitioner said that even if the article was considered defamatory, the police could not call him for questioning unless they first filed a new case.
He explained that defamation charges against the police can only be taken forward through a private complaint in court. Because of this, he argued that the notice sent to him was wrong and amounted to a misuse of legal procedure.
The Government Advocate, speaking for the State, admitted that the investigation in the 2023 case was already finished and that the Special Court for SC/ST Act cases in Virudhunagar had taken it up.
He also confirmed that no new criminal case had been filed against the petitioner regarding the article that was said to be defamatory.
The court pointed out that the notice sent to the petitioner had twelve questions, most of which focused on the article he had written and the remarks in it about the police. The judges also made it clear that this notice was not linked to the 2023 case, since the investigation in that matter had already been finished.
Justice Sunder Mohan explained that if the petitioner needed to be questioned in connection with any other case, the police were required to clearly mention the crime number of that case. In this situation, however, no separate case had been filed against the petitioner, which meant the notice had no legal basis.
The court looked closely at Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and explained that this section only describes when the police can arrest someone without needing a warrant and it does not give the police the authority to call or question a person unless a proper criminal case has been registered against them.
The court ruled that the notice sent to the petitioner had no legal basis and therefore cancelled it.
The judges clarified that this decision would not stop the police from acting lawfully in the future. If a proper case is registered against the petitioner later, and his presence is needed for questioning, the police can proceed according to the law.
The petitioner was represented by advocate R. Karunanidhi, while the State was represented by Government Advocate K. Sanjai Gandhi.
The post Police can’t summon journalist without FIR: Madras HC quashes notice appeared first on Maktoob media.
