Prima Facie Unlawful Detention | Madras High Court Orders Release Of Lawyers And Law Students Held During Protest
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Judicature at Madras Division Bench of Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan, in an order dated 14 August 2025, directed the immediate release of six individuals, comprising four practising lawyers and two law students, who had been taken into police custody during a protest. The court, after reviewing the presented materials, held a prima facie view that their detention "may be unlawful" and ordered their release on specific conditions. The directive prohibits the released individuals, as well as the petitioner, from giving any press interviews, public statements, or social media posts relating to the matter until the next date of hearing. The court scheduled the case to be called again on 21 August 2025.
The matter arose from a Habeas Corpus Petition filed before the Division Bench, wherein the petitioner alleged that certain lawyers and law students had gone missing after police action during a protest by sanitary workers outside the Chennai Corporation Building. According to the petition, the protest was ongoing when police allegedly arrested a group of sanitary workers by force. Several lawyers and law students who were present in solidarity were reported missing, and their whereabouts were unknown. The petitioner provided a list of thirteen missing persons. The petitioner claimed that these individuals were in illegal custody and sought a court direction for their production and release.
Representing the respondents, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the protest had been ongoing for some time. He referred to an earlier order dated 13 August 2025 in W.P. No. 30607 of 2025 passed by the Hon'ble First Bench, which held that while sanitary workers had the right to peaceful protest, such protests could not be conducted on pavements, pathways, or roads. The earlier order also recorded that law enforcement should ensure these areas were not used for protests, while exercising necessary restraint.
The Additional Advocate General informed the court that seven First Information Reports (FIRs) had been registered: FIR Nos. 422 to 427 of 2025 by G2-Periamet Police Station and FIR No. 310 of 2025 by D2-Anna Salai Police Station. These FIRs named four lawyers — K. Bharathi, K. Suresh, Mohan Babu, and R. Raj Kumar — and two law students — Muthuselvan and Valarmathi — as accused. Their arrests had been recorded. The remaining seven persons on the petitioner’s list, including Advocate Aarthi and six law students, were questioned and subsequently released.
The prosecution submitted that the six arrested individuals faced charges under Sections 191, 191(3), 125, 121(1), 126(2), 132, 324(4), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act.
When the Bench sought the evidence that formed the basis of the arrests, the police produced a copy of the accident register of a woman constable from the All Women Police Station, Thousand Lights, and several video clippings. The accident register stated that the constable had suffered a simple injury to her right hand and had been assaulted by "unknown persons". The police had also arrested a total of 930 individuals, including the six in question. The register did not specifically implicate the six detainees named in the petition.
Regarding the video clippings, police claimed that the accused had damaged public transport buses. The court viewed the footage and noted that it showed damage to the glass doors of buses marked with "MTC Police" boards.
The Bench recorded its prima facie view that "the persons accused of having caused rioting were arrested and confined inside the buses". It further stated, "In other words, the Police appear to have already arrested the accused and the damage to the buses seems to have happened later".
The court also noted that the Additional Advocate General, citing the urgency of the lunch motion filing, was unable to produce further supporting materials to substantiate the FIRs at that time and sought additional time.
Significantly, the Bench observed: "In the light of our above observations, we are of the prima facie view that the detention of 4 Lawyers and 2 Law Students by the Police may be unlawful". The court further recorded that not all the arrested persons had been produced before the Magistrate’s Court for remand.
Based on the above findings, the court directed: "Accordingly, the respondents are directed to forthwith release the detenues, namely K. Bharathi, K. Suresh, Mohan Babu, R. Raj Kumar, Muthuselvan and Valarmathi". The release was made conditional on the stipulation that neither the petitioner nor the six released persons shall "give any press interviews or statements or post anything in the social medias with regard to the issue in hand, till the next date of hearing".
The matter was listed to be called again on 21 August 2025.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ramesh Umapathy
For the Respondents: Mr. J. Ravindran, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. R. Muniyapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor, and Mr. Santhosh, Government Advocate
Case Title: S. Vijay v. The Commissioner of Police and Another
Case Number: HCP No. 1599 of 2025
Bench: Justice M.S. Ramesh, Justice V. Lakshminarayanan
