Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
S. Ramathilagam, J.
S.Ve. Shekher, 67 Yrs - Appellant
Vs.
Inspector of Police - Respondent
CRL. OP No. 12229 of 2018
Decided On : 10-05-2018
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 504, 505(1) (c), 509 - Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act - petitioner has stated in his affidavit that he is a diploma holder in Mechanical Engineering with Post Graduate Diploma in Air Conditioning and Refrigeration and further he has also stated that he is a Sound Recordist, Programme Producer, Still Photographer, Video-grapher, Editor and Director, Play Writer, Producer, Television - Film and Theatre artiste playing lead roles - Held, On perusal of the records regarding the case, registered against the accused for the offences and in view of the strong objection made by the prosecution, records pertaining to the influential personality of that person as stated by the petitioner himself and the intervening petitioners and after hearing the arguments of both sides, it is but natural to feel that when the offended public including women were arrested during a protest why the person who is the root cause for such a protest is not dealt with according to law - Petition dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the following key points can be summarized:
The petitioner, a public personality with various professional credentials and social contributions, filed a petition fearing arrest in connection with a case involving alleged offences under Sections 504, 505(1)(c), and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act (!) (!) .
The petitioner claims to have shared messages received via social media platforms, including WhatsApp and Facebook, in a bona fide effort to raise public awareness. He asserts that he did not intentionally commit any offence and that the message was forwarded without reading its content properly (!) (!) .
The petitioner has expressed respect for national leaders and the democratic process, emphasizing his role in promoting constructive discourse and his opposition to any defamatory or offensive content. He also apologized for the inadvertent sharing of an offensive message after being informed of its content (!) .
The case involves allegations that the petitioner’s social media activity, particularly a Facebook post, contained defamatory and derogatory remarks about women journalists, which outraged public sentiments and affected societal harmony. The post was allegedly offensive enough to incite protests and social unrest (!) (!) .
The prosecution contends that the Facebook post was defamatory, insulting the modesty of women, and incited hatred against a particular community, thereby violating laws related to insult, defamation, and hate speech. They argue that the content was deliberate, highly offensive, and caused societal disturbance (!) (!) (!) .
The law relevant to the case includes provisions that address intentional insult, provocation to breach peace, and acts intended to insult the modesty of women. The offences under these sections are described as punishable by imprisonment, fines, or both, with some offences being non-bailable due to their severity [p_35–p_40].
The legal framework also recognizes the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression, but this right is subject to restrictions, especially when speech incites violence, hatred, or defamation. The law aims to balance individual rights with societal harmony and protection of public morality [p_54–p_57].
The court observed that words and expressions, especially when made publicly or through social media, carry significant power and responsibility. The impact of such words on societal perceptions, especially regarding women’s dignity and societal harmony, is a crucial consideration (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that actions or speech that are arbitrary, unreasonable, or in violation of statutory provisions can be subject to legal relief. It highlighted the importance of effective enforcement of existing laws and the role of society in upholding legal standards (!) (!) .
The court acknowledged the importance of protecting constitutional rights, including free speech, but also recognized the need to prevent hate speech, defamation, and acts that threaten public order or violate individual dignity, particularly of women (!) (!) .
The court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, considering the nature of the allegations, the societal impact of the alleged offence, and the objections raised by the prosecution and intervening petitioners (!) .
The investigation into the case is expected to proceed fairly and without bias, ensuring that the law is applied equally to all individuals, regardless of their social or political influence (!) .
These points encapsulate the core legal and factual issues discussed in the document, highlighting the balance between constitutional rights and statutory restrictions in cases involving social media conduct and public morality.
S. Ramathilagam, J.
The petitioner has filed this petition stating that he is apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent herein in connection with the case in Crime No. 148 of 2018 registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 504, 505(1) (c), 509 of IPC read with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harrassment Act.
2. The petitioner has stated in his affidavit that he is a diploma holder in Mechanical Engineering with Post Graduate Diploma in Air Conditioning and Refrigeration and further he has also stated that he is a Sound Recordist, Programme Producer, Still Photographer, Video-grapher, Editor and Director, Play Writer, Producer, Television - Film and Theatre artiste playing lead roles.
3. In subsequent paragraphs of his affidavit, the petitioner has stated his job, his service to the society and his talents in the field of drama and film making, and on the whole he has given a very big list regarding his qualities and his position in the society and his attitude towards the public in helping the people as a Philanthropist. The petitioner has also stated that he has great respect for the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India and his way of working and further he stated his position as a long standing politician attached with Bharathiya Janatha Party. He is also doing service by way of probagating the great and noble ideas of our great leaders.
4. He is also in the habit of sharing his views through social media like Whats App, Facebook and Twitter strictly in constructive and healthy way and he used to express his views with great discipline and decorum without any defamatory, insult to individuals or targetting any groups, which is important to maintain the Freedom of Expression as guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) of our Constitution.
5. He has further stated that there are exchanges of words, printed materials, messages through public domains, like WhatsApp, Facebook, Messenger, Twitter etc. and through medias even without any basic decency, morality, ethics, outraging religious feelings of others in particular making allegations and counter allegations against dignity of women even without leaving Mother and Mother language and Motherland, outraging modesty of woman by making allegations which are defamatory in nature blasphemous, offencive, dubious and pervert. Such allegations are made even without basic and proper understanding on the concept of freedom of speech and expression.
6. The petitioner further stated that when there were threats to soverignity, unity and integrity of our mother India, being a law abiding citizen, he used to express his views and opinion in press and social medias.
7. Further, he has stated that he used to forward certain messages, which he has received through Social Medias, with a bonafide intention of bringing the same to the public awareness irrespective whether he is agreeing with the said opinion or views finds place in the said post. Simply, he used to forward the same for the sake of viewers at large. On 19.4.2018, he has received a message from one Tirumalai Sa, who has forwarded the message to him in his group, who used to forward patrotic and spiritual messages regularly to his Facebook account and those messages used to be always constructive and healthy. On 19.4.2018, he has received a message from the said Facebook account under the bonafide impression and forwarded the said message without reading the contents and knowing the nature of the said message as usual, which resulted in over confidence. But, later it was pointed out by his friend that the said content was abusive one and he has also felt that it is acceptable to him and condemnable in nature and he is against the said views found in the forwarded message and immediately, he removed the same. But, due to malafide intention of personal vendetta and politcal vengeance, some mischevious people are spreading the screen shot/photoshop of the deleted post even without understanding tha
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
