CLAT Tribe
Back to Editorials
The HinduJuly 21, 2026

Accommodating dissent: On the TVK government’s actions

At the heart of democratic disposition is tolerance of dissent and upholding of the rule of law; threats to these can undo the knit of a democracy. In the first couple of months of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK)’s rule in Tamil Nadu, at least 10 people have been subject to police action, on account of speaking against the Chief Minister or his cabinet colleagues. While the case of former Minister Anitha Radhakrishnan’s arrest for criticising Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay gained the spotlight, there were several others who were arrested or faced police action over the course of this period. This includes James Raja of Tirunelveli ; V. Vishnuprabhu and T. Manojkumar , residents of Coimbatore, for a Facebook post criticising the Chief Minister; and Thangamani of Karur. In the case of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK)’s Gen Z wing leader A. Anbanantham, police searched his residence claiming that he made ‘derogatory’ posts regarding Mr. Vijay and his family. YouTuber Maridhas was arrested by the Chennai Cyber Crime police for his remarks against the Chief Minister and Industries Minister S. Keerthana. DMK MLA Markandayan was arrested in Thoothukudi over an alleged threat he made against the Chief Minister. Others arrested include Vinoth Suryakumar who commented on HR&CE Minister S. Ramesh and RJ Saran Jayaraman who was arrested by the police for content posted on Instagram targeting a woman who supported the TVK. A case was also filed against Indrani Sudalaimuthu for remarks made against S. Ramesh. Political actors of all hues have normalised using the police and criminal law as a shield to protect their reputation, whenever they come to power. This creates a structural risk for democracy. The actions of the police indicate a wider pattern of speech-related arrests, and authoritarianism under the TVK government, where defamation, the IT Act and cyber crime provisions are invoked at will for any criticism against individuals in the government or the ruling party. Complaints being filed by the TVK cadre and the suo motu action of the police targeting dissenters could run the administration off the rails. The alacrity with which the government is ready to treat allegations against Ministers as criminal misinformation or defamation, rather than let them take the natural course of civil suits or political contestation, is disheartening. A new government has the opportunity to rewrite the rules of engagement with the public, to be tolerant of dissent, and not to misdirect the power it is vested with, just to curb opposition. Every government keen on development could be enriched by criticism and dissent articulated on public platforms, if it is willing. It must remember that the restriction of harmful, obscene and indecent content must be balanced with the overwhelming supremacy of freedom of speech. Published - July 21, 2026 12:20 am IST Read Comments Copy link Email Facebook Twitter Telegram LinkedIn WhatsApp Reddit READ LATER SEE ALL Remove Related Topics democracy / law / Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam / arrest / media / Coimbatore / politics / police / cyber crime / government

Key GK Takeaways for CLAT
  • 1Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression to all citizens, but this right is not absolute, since Article 19(2) permits the state to impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order, decency, morality, and defamation. When a state government uses police machinery to arrest critics rather than pursuing civil remedies, it raises separation-of-powers concerns and risks converting law enforcement into an instrument of political retaliation, weakening the democratic accountability that Article 19 is meant to protect.
  • 2Tamil Nadu's politics has historically been shaped by strong regional parties such as the DMK and AIADMK, alongside recurring Centre-state friction over federalism, language policy, and fiscal devolution. A new entrant like TVK consolidating power through police action against dissenters echoes earlier controversies in Indian states involving misuse of preventive detention laws like the National Security Act and state Goondas Acts against journalists and activists, raising broader concerns about India's federal polity and the health of sub-national democracy.
  • 3In Shreya Singhal versus Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as unconstitutionally vague and violative of free speech. Criminal defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, now Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, was nonetheless upheld as constitutional in Subramanian Swamy versus Union of India (2016), meaning arrests over online criticism can still proceed through defamation and cyber crime provisions despite Shreya Singhal's protections.
  • 4India has consistently ranked poorly on global press freedom indices, with the 2024 World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders placing India at 159th out of 180 countries, citing politically motivated arrests and violence against journalists. The National Crime Records Bureau has also recorded a steadily rising number of cases filed under IT Act provisions each year, reflecting a broader national pattern in which criminal law is increasingly used to police online speech across multiple states, not only Tamil Nadu.