Madras HC Dismisses MLA's Challenge to Remand Over Alleged Threat Speech Against Chief Minister

Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan upheld the remand of Vilathikulam MLA G.V. Markandayan, finding police had duly followed Section 35 of BNSS before arresting him over an alleged criminal threat speech targeting the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister.

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, in a reserved order pronounced on 5 August 2026, dismissed a criminal original petition filed by G.V. Markandayan, the sitting Member of Legislative Assembly from Vilathikulam Constituency, challenging his judicial remand. Markandayan had been arrested on 20 July 2026 following an FIR registered as Crime No.16 of 2026, which alleged that he made threatening remarks against the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu at a public meeting in Kovilpatti on 18 July 2026. Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, sitting singly, found that the arresting officers had satisfied the conditions under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), that the Judicial Magistrate had applied her mind before passing the remand order, and that the Supreme Court guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation were not violated.

The Alleged Speech and the FIR

On 18 July 2026, a public meeting was held near Krishnan Temple, Kovilpatti, organised by a political party to express gratitude to voters. Markandayan, who represents the Vilathikulam Constituency, allegedly used derogatory and threatening language against the Chief Minister during this gathering. According to the prosecution, he issued statements to the effect that the Chief Minister would be physically harmed inside the Legislative Assembly, including threats to break his hip bone if certain actions were taken.

The speech circulated widely on social media and, according to the prosecution, gave rise to a likelihood of clashes between members of different political groups and a disturbance of public peace. An FIR was registered for offences under Sections 351(3), 352, and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Markandayan was arrested by the District Crime Branch, Thoothukudi, at 6.39 a.m. on 20 July 2026, produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thoothukudi, and remanded to judicial custody until 3 August 2026.

The Petitioner's Challenges

Senior Counsel Mr. P. Wilson, appearing for Markandayan, raised several grounds to assail the remand. The primary contention was that the offences carry a maximum sentence of up to seven years, which means Section 35(3) of BNSS required the police to first issue a notice to the petitioner before proceeding to arrest. No such notice was issued, making the arrest itself illegal, he argued.

Counsel further submitted that the Judicial Magistrate remanded the petitioner mechanically, without independently satisfying herself of the necessity of arrest as required by Section 35 of BNSS. The police, he contended, also failed to record reasons for the arrest in writing as mandated by Section 35(1) of BNSS. He relied on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, and Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 162, for the proposition that arrests in cases involving offences punishable with up to seven years must not be made routinely. He also cited Manubhai Ratilal Patel Through Ushaben v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2013) 1 SCC 314, for the obligation on a Magistrate to apply her mind before ordering remand.

The State's Position

The State Public Prosecutor, Mr. R. John Sathyan, assisted by Government Advocate Mr. Arun Anbumani, filed a counter affidavit. The police explained that Markandayan's threatening speech continued to circulate across social media platforms after the FIR was registered. The arrest was considered necessary to prevent him from committing further offences, from tampering with or destroying electronic evidence using his political influence, and from inducing or intimidating witnesses.

The State also pointed to the security implications: the petitioner had allegedly threatened to attack the Chief Minister inside the Legislative Assembly itself, making the threat not merely rhetorical but directed at a specific location and victim. Arrest information was served on the petitioner's brother-in-law, who was present at the time of arrest, in the presence of a witness. The petitioner was medically examined at the Government Medical College and Hospital, Thoothukudi, and certified fit for remand.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Ilanthiraiyan examined the record in detail, including the preliminary interrogation answers given by the petitioner in his own handwriting. Those answers, the court observed, showed that the petitioner was aware of the reasons for his arrest.

The court extracted and applied Section 35(1)(b) of BNSS, which permits a police officer to arrest without a warrant where a reasonable suspicion exists that a cognizable offence punishable with up to seven years has been committed, provided the officer is satisfied that the arrest is necessary for one of the enumerated reasons — including preventing further offences, ensuring proper investigation, preventing disappearance or tampering of evidence, or preventing the accused from influencing witnesses.

On the Arnesh Kumar guidelines, the court noted that the police must furnish the Magistrate with the facts, reasons, and materials that led to the decision to arrest, and the Magistrate must record her satisfaction in writing before authorising detention. Justice Ilanthiraiyan found that the Judicial Magistrate had verified the FIR, the arrest intimation, the preliminary interrogation report, and the stated grounds before passing the remand order. The Magistrate had also considered the judgments cited by the petitioner's counsel at the time of remand and recorded that all provisions of BNSS had been duly complied with.

On Manubhai Ratilal Patel, the court distinguished the facts: the Magistrate had not acted automatically or mechanically but had applied her mind to the materials placed before her.

On the Satender Kumar Antil judgment (2026 SCC OnLine SC 162), which reaffirmed that the power of arrest under Section 35(6) read with Section 35(1)(b) of BNSS “must be interpreted as a strict objective necessity, and not a subjective convenience for the police officer,” the court found the ruling equally inapplicable. The respondent had independently satisfied himself of the necessity of arrest before executing it, and the procedure under Section 35 of BNSS had been followed.

The court also addressed the offence under Section 351(3) of BNS separately: a threat to cause death or grievous hurt carries a maximum sentence of seven years, placing it squarely within the Section 35(1)(b) framework rather than outside it.

Bail Prayer Withdrawn

The criminal original petition had carried a twin prayer: setting aside the remand order of 20 July 2026, and, consequentially, releasing the petitioner on bail. By an order dated 29 July 2026, the court had already permitted the petitioner's counsel to withdraw the bail prayer. Accordingly, the dismissal order of 5 August 2026 addresses only the challenge to the remand order itself.

Order

Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan dismissed Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15390 of 2026 on 5 August 2026. The court found no infirmity or illegality in the remand order dated 20 July 2026 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thoothukudi in Crime No.16 of 2026. The consequential bail prayer had been withdrawn by the petitioner on 29 July 2026 with the court's permission.