The Madras High Court has agreed to promptly hear a petition filed by Vilathikulam DMK MLA G.V. Markandayan challenging the legality of his judicial remand after being arrested for alleged remarks threatening Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay. Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan allowed the matter to be expedited through a lunch-motion hearing following the MLA’s counsel’s request for urgent intervention. The petition aims to invalidate the remand order issued by a judicial magistrate in Thoothukudi on July 20 and secure the MLA’s release on bail.
Markandayan was taken into custody by the Thoothukudi District Crime Branch (DCB) based on a complaint alleging that he had stated during a public gathering that DMK legislators would “break the bones” of the Chief Minister within the Legislative Assembly. He has been in judicial detention since July 20 and was remanded until August 3. The MLA’s petition before the High Court argues that his arrest breached the safeguards under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The plea contends that the police did not justify the necessity of the arrest instead of issuing a notice under Section 41A of the BNSS, which allows summoning an accused for questioning when immediate arrest is not required. It also highlights that the alleged offenses carry a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment, which does not automatically warrant custodial arrest. Markandayan referenced Supreme Court rulings emphasizing that authorities should issue notices rather than make arrests in cases punishable by up to seven years unless there are compelling reasons.
The criminal case originated from a complaint filed by S. Balasubramanian on July 19 regarding a speech delivered by the MLA at a DMK public event near the Krishnan Temple in Kovilpatti on July 18. The DCB registered an FIR under Sections 351(3) (criminal intimidation), 352 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), and 353(2) (statements conducing to public mischief) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The magistrate, while remanding the MLA to judicial custody, cited the gravity of the alleged speech and referred to the Supreme Court’s guidelines in the Arnesh Kumar case.
