Madurai Bench Orders Cyber Crime Police to Preserve Digital Evidence in Morphed-Video Complaint Against Naam Tamilar Leader

The Madras High Court's Madurai Bench directed the Cyber Crime Police Station, Madurai, to expeditiously investigate a complaint about morphed videos targeting Naam Tamilar Katchi chief Senthamilan Seeman and to secure all electronic evidence immediately.

Justice L. Victoria Gowri, sitting singly at the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, disposed of a criminal writ petition on 28 July 2026 with five specific directions to the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Madurai District. The petition arose from a complaint about YouTube videos containing morphed images and abusive Tamil content targeting Senthamilan Seeman, the Chief Coordinator of Naam Tamilar Katchi. The petitioner, G. Thirumurugan @ Theeran Thirumurugan, a State Coordinator of the party and a practising advocate before the Ramanathapuram District and Sessions Court and the Madurai Bench, had lodged the complaint on 2 July 2026. When no meaningful action followed, he moved the High Court under Article 226 seeking a writ of mandamus. The court's order focuses heavily on the risk of disappearing electronic evidence and the obligation of police to act without political bias.

The Complaint and the Grievance Before Court

Thirumurugan told the court that he came across a YouTube video in which morphed images of Seeman were combined with abusive, derogatory and highly offensive expressions in Tamil. His counsel, Mr. P. Prabhakar Pandian, argued that the material went beyond permissible political criticism and contained baseless allegations, slanderous imputations and offensive personal attacks against the political leader.

The complaint was lodged on 2 July 2026 before respondents 1 to 3 — the Superintendent of Police, Madurai District; the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City; and the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Madurai District. Respondents 4 and 5, named Bismi and Tamilan Gokul, are the alleged content creators on social media platforms. No effective action followed the complaint, prompting the writ petition.

The State's counsel, Mr. D. Rajaboopathy, Government Advocate (Criminal Side), submitted that the complaint had been taken on file. CSR No. 1112 of 2026 was registered on 25 July 2026, and summons were issued to the petitioner on 16 July, 20 July, and 24 July 2026 requiring his appearance for enquiry. The Government Advocate contended that the petitioner's own non-cooperation had prevented the investigation from proceeding expeditiously.

Thirumurugan's counsel rejected that characterisation, asserting that despite the complaint having been lodged on 2 July 2026, no prompt or meaningful investigative steps had been taken and that the issuance of summons alone cannot be treated as substantial compliance with the statutory obligation to investigate cognizable allegations relating to cyber offences.

The Court's Reasoning on Delay and Digital Evidence

Justice Gowri observed that, although CSR No. 1112 of 2026 had been registered, the records disclosed that the complaint had not been acted upon with the promptitude expected in matters involving digital publications. The court identified a specific practical danger: in cyber-related offences, delay often results in the disappearance of electronic evidence, alteration of online content, and difficulty in tracing digital footprints.

The court drew a clear line between what the police must do at this stage and what they need not do. The primary obligation was to secure electronic evidence, identify the digital source of the impugned material, and preserve relevant electronic records in accordance with law. The court made plain that this investigative duty is preliminary and does not require the agency to adjudicate on the correctness of the allegations.

On freedom of speech, the court acknowledged that the right under the Constitution occupies a cherished position in a constitutional democracy, but equally held that such freedom is not absolute and remains subject to the reasonable restrictions recognised under Article 19(2). The law, the court said, does not permit publication of content amounting to cognizable offences merely because the subject matter concerns a political personality.

The court then addressed the concern about selective law enforcement directly. It stated that the investigating agency cannot adopt different standards while responding to complaints depending upon the political identity of the individuals involved. Consistency in law enforcement, the court held, is an indispensable component of the rule of law. The bench noted that whenever allegations are made regarding dissemination of unlawful online content attracting penal consequences, the investigating agency is expected to respond with equal promptitude “irrespective of whether the complaint pertains to members of the ruling party, the opposition or any other political organisation.” Neutrality of the police, it added, forms the very foundation of public confidence in criminal justice administration.

The Five Directions to the Cyber Crime Police

Justice Gowri directed the third respondent, the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Madurai District, to carry out the following steps:

First, to expeditiously process the petitioner's complaint dated 2 July 2026 in accordance with law.

Second, to identify the relevant social media accounts, YouTube channels, Uniform Resource Locators (URLs), user identifiers, and other digital particulars connected with the impugned publications.

Third, to take immediate steps for preservation of electronic evidence, including obtaining and securing all relevant digital records in accordance with the provisions governing electronic evidence under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and other applicable statutory provisions.

Fourth, to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law against respondents 4 and 5, Bismi and Tamilan Gokul, if the materials collected during investigation disclose commission of any cognizable offence.

Fifth, wherever legally permissible and considered necessary during investigation, to initiate appropriate proceedings before the competent authority or intermediary for disabling or removing the impugned content in accordance with the procedure established by law.

The court added a significant rider: the respondent police shall proceed with the investigation strictly on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observations contained in the order, except to the extent of ensuring prompt consideration of the complaint and preservation of electronic evidence.

Outcome

The writ petition was disposed of on 28 July 2026 with the above five directions. The matter was posted under the caption “For Reporting Compliance” on 29 July 2026. The order copy was directed to be issued on 28 July 2026 itself. Copies were directed to the Superintendent of Police, Madurai District; the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City; the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Madurai District; and the Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.