Madras HC Fixes Appearance Date for Nakkeeran Editor, Declines General Anti-Harassment Direction

Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy directs Nakkeeran editor Gopal to appear before Cyber Crime police on 13 August 2026, while declining to bar police from acting against a registered accused.

The Madras High Court, on 10 August 2026, disposed of two criminal original petitions filed by Nakkeeran Gopal — proprietor, editor, printer, and publisher of Nakkeeran publication — who sought protection from police action in connection with Crime No. 23 of 2026 registered by the Cyber Crime Wing, Chennai South, Central Crime Branch-1. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, sitting singly, fixed 13 August 2026 at 11.00 a.m. as the date on which Gopal must appear before the police pursuant to a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The court declined to issue any general direction restraining the police from “harassing” the petitioner, holding that such a prayer is not maintainable when the petitioner is a named accused in a registered case.

The Case Registered Against the Editor

The FIR in Crime No. 23 of 2026 was registered by the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Wing, Chennai South, Central Crime Branch-1. The alleged offences are under Sections 352, 353(1)(b) and 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The registration arose from an interview that Gopal gave to a social media channel.

Gopal had already approached the Principal Sessions Judge seeking anticipatory bail. That application was pending when the present petitions were heard, with the Public Prosecutor still awaiting instructions. Despite the pendency of that application, the police had, according to the petitioner, issued repeated notices under Section 35(3) of the BNSS requiring him to appear on the very next day and on dates immediately thereafter, which his counsel characterised as undue haste.

The Two Petitions and What Was Sought

Gopal moved two separate petitions under Section 528 of the BNSS. CRL OP No. 22419 of 2026 prayed for a direction to the respondent police not to harass him. CRL OP No. 22448 of 2026 prayed for the setting aside of conditions imposed in a notice dated 06.08.2026 issued by the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Wing. The case was taken up as a lunch motion.

Mr. P.T. Perumal, appearing for the petitioner in both matters, advanced three arguments. First, the repeated notices were issued while the anticipatory bail application was pending, amounting to harassment. Second, the conditions attached to the notice curtailed the petitioner's fundamental right to freedom of speech under the Constitution. Third, the guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, had been violated, and the police could not insist on the petitioner furnishing information in Clauses 6 to 10 of the Section 35(3) notice.

Mr. M. Mohamed Riyaz, Government Advocate (Criminal Side), appeared for the respondents. He did not have instructions because the matter was a lunch motion, but he opposed the prayer for a general anti-harassment direction on the ground that the petitioner was admittedly an accused. On the conditions in the notice, he submitted that they were routine conditions flowing from directions issued by the Madras High Court in earlier cases and did not interfere with the petitioner's right to freedom of speech.

Why the Anti-Harassment Prayer Was Rejected

Justice Chakravarthy declined to grant the Government Advocate any further time to seek instructions, given the nature of the relief and the order he proposed to pass.

On the first prayer, the court was clear: when a person is an accused in a registered case, a general direction from the High Court restraining the police from “harassing” that person cannot be entertained. Gopal had, in the court's view, rightly approached the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail, and it was for that court to deal with the application in accordance with law.

The court also did not address the Arnesh Kumar argument at length, nor did it rule on the validity of individual clauses in the Section 35(3) notice. Both questions were left open for the petitioner to raise at the appropriate stage.

Limited Relief: A Fixed Appearance Date

While the broad prayer was rejected, the court acknowledged that the anticipatory bail application remained pending and that Gopal was required to respond to notices regardless of how that application was decided. On that basis, it granted limited relief by fixing a specific appearance date — 13 August 2026 at 11.00 a.m. — before the respondent police.

On the conditions embedded in the notice, the court did not strike them down or even evaluate each clause. Instead, it preserved the petitioner's liberty to return to the High Court if the conditions were pressed to the point of interfering with his fundamental right to freedom of speech, or if the police sought information that was not legally permissible or that was directly connected with the alleged commission of the offence. The court was explicit that it was not expressing any opinion on the validity of any individual clause.

Outcome

Both criminal original petitions — CRL OP Nos. 22419 and 22448 of 2026 — were disposed of on 10 August 2026 with the directions set out above. The connected miscellaneous petition, CRL.MP.No.14881 of 2026, was closed. Gopal's anticipatory bail application before the Principal Sessions Judge remains pending and was unaffected by this order.