Section 353(2) [statements conducing to public mischief] of the BNS. Apprehending arrest, Radhakrishnan had approached the court.

[03/07, 15:52] sekarreporter1: “Have To Respect The Chief Minister”: Madras High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To DMK MLA Over Remarks On CM Joseph Vijay https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/madras-high-court-anitha-radhakrishnan-cm-joseph-vijay-anticipatory-bail-dismissed-539768
[03/07, 15:52] sekarreporter1: menu_bar
Live Law
home-iconTop StoriesNews UpdatesColumnsInterviewsForeign/InternationalRTIKnow the LawLaw SchoolsLaw FirmsJob UpdatesBook ReviewsEvents CornerVideosSponsoredContact UsAdvertise with UsRound UpsIBC NewsEnvironmental LawCartoonsTaxArbitrationConsumer Cases
Home > High Courts > Madras High Court > “Have To Respect The…
“Have To Respect The Chief Minister”: Madras High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To DMK MLA Over Remarks On CM Joseph Vijay
By – Upasana Sajeevtwitter-greylinkedinUpdate: 2026-07-03 05:57 GMT
“Have To Respect The Chief Minister”: Madras High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To DMK MLA Over Remarks On CM Joseph Vijay
facebook icontwitter iconlinkedin icontubmlr iconpinterest icon
whatsapp icon
Click the Play button to listen to article
The Madras High Court, on Friday (July 3rd), dismissed an anticipatory bail petition filed by DMK MLA Anita R Radhakrishnan in a case registered against him for making objectionable statements against the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Joseph Vijay. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 294]

While speaking at a public event on June 20, Radhakrishnan is said to have made statements against the CM, saying that his demeanor in the Assembly was similar to that of a person feeling trapped and commenting about his life in the movie industry, before moving into politics. Following a complaint, cases were registered under Section 352 [Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace] and Section 353(2) [statements conducing to public mischief] of the BNS. Apprehending arrest, Radhakrishnan had approached the court.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan dismissed the plea. During the course of the hearing, the judge orally remarked that Radhakrishnan, being a member of the legislative assembly, should not have made such statements.

“Being a member of the legislative assembly, what kind of speech you’ve spoken? Whoever it maybe, you have to respect the CM,” the court orally remarked.
The court also orally remarked that the State of Tamil Nadu has been seeing leaders who have come from the cine industry since 1967. The court added that these leaders were elected by the people, and in such circumstances, the statement made by Radhakrishnan was unwarranted.

“In state of TN, since 1967, people from the cinema are being voted. Then why are you making these statements? You’re not a layman. You’re a member of the assembly”, the court orally remarked.

When the case came up for consideration on Friday, Senior Advocate NR Elango argued that Radhakrishnan’s speech would not attract the ingredients of the sections charged. He added that there was no provocation in the speech. To this, the court commented that the complaint was made only because there was some provocation.

Elango argued that there was no intention to break the public peace or an intention to create feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will. He added that the statements made by Radhakrishnan would only fall within defamation, for which a definite procedure of law had been provided. He thus argued that the present case was not sustainable.

“Whatever he has spoken may be defamation. But not these sections. There’s a procedure contemplated for defamation. I’m not saying it’s not defamatory. It is defamatory. But the procedure for defamation has to be followed. If a statement is made in connection with public duty, the prosecutor can file. If it’s not in connection with official functions and relates to private life, a complaint can be given in an individual capacity. This is not the way the police should use their powers,” Elango argued.

The State objected to the plea and argued that even today, Radhakrishnan had not shown any remorse for the statements made by him. It was argued that the statements were made against the office of the Chief Minister, and if such conduct was permitted, any Tom, Dick or Harry would make statements against the Chief Minister.

“He should not have made such statements. Should have exercised restraint. Even today, there is no remorse. Today we’re dealing with the office of CM. Can we let any Tom, Dick and Harry to make comments against the CM?” the State argued.

After considering the arguments, the court dismissed the plea.

Order copy awaited.

Case Title: Anitha R Radhakrishnan v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 294

Case No: Crl OP (MD) 12851 of 2026

Tags:
Madras High Court Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan Anitha Radhakrishnan CM Joseph Vijay objectionable speech Section 352 BNS Section 353 (2) BNS Anticipatory Bail
Similar News
LiveLaw Madras High Court Monthly Digest: June 2026 [Citations 228 – 286]
LiveLaw Madras High Court Monthly Digest: June 2026 [Citations 228 – 286]
2026-07-03 04:30 GMT
Ponmudis Speech Reveals Deliberate Intention To Wound Hindus Religious Beliefs: Madras High Court While Refusing To Quash Hate Speech Case
Ponmudi’s Speech Reveals Deliberate Intention To Wound Hindus’ Religious Beliefs: Madras High Court While Refusing To Quash Hate Speech Case
2026-07-02 13:51 GMT
madras high court suspends one month imprisonment on ias officer in contempt plea
Madras High Court Keeps In Abeyance Order Staying Suspension Of DVAC Inspector Accused Of Seeking Bribe
2026-07-02 12:39 GMT
TVK Lawyer Moves Madras High Court Alleging Bribery In Appointment Of Govt Advocates; Says Posts Sold For ₹5-30 Lakh Each
TVK Lawyer Moves Madras High Court Alleging Bribery In Appointment Of Govt Advocates; Says Posts Sold For ₹5-30 Lakh Each
2026-07-02 12:08 GMT
Madras High Court Orders District Collector To Probe Alleged Caste-Based Exclusion From Temple Procession
Madras High Court Orders District Collector To Probe Alleged Caste-Based Exclusion From Temple Procession
2026-07-02 07:42 GMT
Questioning Paternity Of Child, Asking Wife To Undergo DNA Test Is Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce
Questioning Paternity Of Child, Asking Wife To Undergo DNA Test Is Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce
2026-07-02 06:51 GMT
Madras High Court Dismisses Former Minister Ponmudis Plea Against Magistrate Taking Cognisance Of Hate Speech Complaint
Madras High Court Dismisses Former Minister Ponmudi’s Plea Against Magistrate Taking Cognisance Of Hate Speech Complaint
2026-07-02 05:14 GMT
“PIL Not To Vindicate Personal Animosity”: Madras High Court Dismisses Savukku Shankars Plea For CBI Probe Against TN Vigilance Chief
“PIL Not To Vindicate Personal Animosity”: Madras High Court Dismisses Savukku Shankar’s Plea For CBI Probe Against TN Vigilance Chief
2026-07-01 14:07 GMT
BREAKING | Madras High Court Sets Aside Recruitment Of 17 Personal Assistants To Judges, Says Those With Even Zero Marks Appointed
BREAKING | Madras High Court Sets Aside Recruitment Of 17 Personal Assistants To Judges, Says Those With Even ‘Zero Marks’ Appointed
2026-07-01 09:49 GMT
Hinduism Is An Inclusive Faith: Madras High Court Asks Authorities To Permit Temple Entry To American Woman Who Embraced Hinduism
Hinduism Is An Inclusive Faith: Madras High Court Asks Authorities To Permit Temple Entry To American Woman Who Embraced Hinduism
2026-07-01 08:50 GMT
Madras High Court Questions Maintainability Of Savukku Shankars PIL For CBI Probe Against DVAC Head Arun IPS, Reserves Order
Madras High Court Questions Maintainability Of Savukku Shankar’s PIL For CBI Probe Against DVAC Head Arun IPS, Reserves Order
2026-07-01 06:35 GMT
Follow: fbtwitterinstagramlinkedinwhatsapp
Copyright @2026Powered by Blink CMS