Madras HC to urgently hear DMK MLA Markandayan's remand plea
Synopsis
A sitting DMK legislator from Vilathikulam is challenging his own remand in the Madras High Court, invoking the same Supreme Court precedent the magistrate cited when sending him to custody — a legal irony that makes this case a pointed test of whether arrest safeguards under the new BNSS hold up in politically charged situations.
Key Takeaways
The Madras High Court on 23 July agreed to urgently hear a bail-and-remand challenge filed by DMK MLA G.V.
Markandayan of Vilathikulam.
Markandayan was arrested by the Thoothukudi DCB over alleged remarks at a public meeting threatening Chief Minister C.
An FIR was registered under Sections 351(3), 352, and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita; the MLA has been in custody since 20 July and is remanded until 3 August .
The MLA argues police violated Section 41A of the BNSS by arresting him without justifying why a notice was insufficient.
His petition invokes the Supreme Court's Arnesh Kumar (2014) and Satender Kumar Antil (2022) rulings on arrest safeguards.
Ilanthiraiyan permitted a lunch-motion hearing after counsel sought urgent intervention.
The Madras High Court on Thursday, 23 July agreed to urgently hear a petition filed by Vilathikulam Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) legislator G.V. Markandayan, who is challenging the legality of his judicial remand following his arrest over alleged remarks threatening Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay. Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan permitted the matter to be taken up through a lunch-motion hearing after the MLA's counsel sought urgent intervention.
Background to the Arrest
Markandayan was taken into custody by the Thoothukudi District Crime Branch (DCB) after a complaint alleged that he had declared at a public meeting that DMK legislators would 'break the bones' of the Chief Minister inside the Legislative Assembly. The complaint was lodged by S. Balasubramanian on 19 July, stemming from a speech the MLA reportedly delivered at a DMK public meeting near the Krishnan Temple in Kovilpatti on 18 July.
The DCB registered a First Information Report (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 (BNS). A judicial magistrate in Thoothukudi remanded the MLA to judicial custody on 20 July, citing the seriousness of the alleged speech. He has remained in custody since and is remanded until 3 August.
Legal Grounds Cited by the MLA
In his petition before the High Court, Markandayan argued that his arrest violated procedural safeguards enshrined under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). He contended that the police failed to justify why a direct arrest was necessary rather than issuing a notice under Section 41A of the BNSS, which allows investigators to summon an accused for questioning in cases where immediate arrest is not warranted.
The petition further argued that the offences invoked carry a maximum punishment of seven years' imprisonment and therefore did not automatically justify custodial arrest. According to the petitioner, the investigating agency also failed to place before the magistrate any material establishing the necessity of the arrest prior to seeking remand.
Supreme Court Precedents Invoked
Markandayan's counsel relied on two landmark Supreme Court rulings — Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar (2014) and Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation (2022) — both of which emphasise that police should ordinarily issue notices rather than make arrests in offences punishable with up to seven years, unless compelling reasons exist. Notably, the very magistrate who remanded the MLA had also cited the Arnesh Kumar guidelines while passing the remand order, making the invocation of those same precedents by the defence a pointed legal argument.
What Happens Next
The petition seeks to quash the remand order passed by the judicial magistrate in Thoothukudi and secure Markandayan's release on bail. The lunch-motion hearing before Justice Ilanthiraiyan is expected to determine whether the court will grant interim relief. The outcome could have implications for how procedural arrest safeguards under the BNSS are applied in politically sensitive cases across Tamil Nadu.
Point of View
And the MLA's defence is now using the same judgment to argue the arrest was unjustified. That tension points to a broader problem — Arnesh Kumar has been on the books since 2014, yet custodial remands in politically sensitive cases remain routine. The shift from CrPC to BNSS was meant to modernise procedural safeguards, but this case will test whether those safeguards are being applied in letter or merely in citation. If the Madras High Court grants relief, it sends a signal; if it does not, the question of whether Section 41A notices are being treated as the default — as the Supreme Court intended — remains unanswered.
NationPress
23 Jul 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Why was DMK MLA G.V. Markandayan arrested?
Markandayan was arrested by the Thoothukudi District Crime Branch after a complaint alleged he threatened Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay at a public meeting on 18 July, reportedly saying DMK legislators would 'break the bones' of the Chief Minister inside the Legislative Assembly. An FIR was registered under three sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
What is the Madras High Court hearing about?
The High Court agreed on 23 July to urgently hear Markandayan's petition challenging the legality of his judicial remand. The petition seeks to quash the remand order issued by a Thoothukudi magistrate on 20 July and secure the MLA's release on bail.
What legal argument is Markandayan making?
The MLA contends that police violated Section 41A of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita by arresting him without first issuing a notice for questioning, and that the offences — carrying a maximum of seven years' imprisonment — did not automatically warrant custodial arrest. He also invokes Supreme Court rulings in Arnesh Kumar (2014) and Satender Kumar Antil (2022).
How long is Markandayan in judicial custody?
Markandayan has been in judicial custody since 20 July 2025 and was remanded until 3 August 2025 by the judicial magistrate in Thoothukudi.
What are the Arnesh Kumar guidelines cited in this case?
The Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar (2014) Supreme Court ruling directs police not to make automatic arrests in offences punishable with up to seven years, and instead to issue Section 41A notices unless compelling reasons for arrest exist. Both the remanding magistrate and the MLA's defence have cited this precedent.
