Failure to follow procedural requirements by the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women invalidated their actions and recommendations, allowing the writ petition.

ORDER :

A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

The prayer in this writ petition has two limbs. Vide the first limb, the proceedings in Case No.5279 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent Commission initiated pursuant to the complaint made by the respondents 3 and 4 and the recommendation dated 11.11.2025 made by the first respondent Commission to the second respondent (Director General of Police) to initiate criminal prosecution against the petitioner under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998, are sought to be quashed. Vide the second limb, a mandamus is sought to forbear the second respondent from proceeding with the aforesaid recommendation made by the first respondent Commission.

2. Facts leading to the filing of this writ petition could be summarised thus:

2.1. On a complaint dated 14.10.2025 given by the respondents 3 and 4 (private respondents) stating that the petitioner, in one of his speeches for his party cadres, has stated that the present Government may even announce one wife free to each citizen, the first respondent Commission issued summons dated 24.10.2025 to the petitioner to appear before the first respondent Commission on 28.10.2025 at 12.00 noon, which was served on the petitioner on 27.10.2025.

2.2. Unable to appear before the first respondent Commission at short notice, the petitioner authorised his counsel who filed vakalatnama and a memo which were concededly refused to be received by the first respondent Commission.

2.3. Thereafter, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 05.11.2025 to the first respondent Commission, inter alia, recounting non-supply of complaint copy along with the summons and also video of alleged statement made by him which was the basis for the complaint, refusal of the first respondent Commission to receive memo and vakalatnama and his willingness to respond to the allegations made against him.

2.4. While so, the first respondent Commission, vide a communication dated 11.11.2025 addressed to the second respondent, closed the complaint by recommending for initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner under the relevant provisions of the BNS and TNPHW Act. The said communication further stated that the report of the prosecution may be circulated to the Hon'ble Chairman, Rajya Sabha and the matter may be reported back to the first respondent Commission.

2.5. Challenging the proceedings initiated by the first respondent Commission and also the communication dated 11.11.2025 of the first respondent Commission addressed to the second respondent, this writ petition (criminal) has been filed, as has already been delineated in the opening paragraph.

3. Mr. Mohamed Riyaz, learned counsel for the petitioner, advanced the following submissions:

3.1. The summons dated 24.10.2025 has been issued by the first respondent unilaterally without the concurrence of other Members of the Commission and also without the authentication by the Member Secretary of the Commission, which is against the provisions of the TNSCW Act;

3.2 The summons dated 24.10.2025 was not accompanied by a copy of the complaint, thereby denying the petitioner an opportunity to put forth his defence, much less effective defence; and

3.3. The alleged speech made by the petitioner was in a meeting of his party cadres and it was not a public speech; even if the averments in the complaint are taken at their face value, no offence can be made out necessitating initiation of criminal action against the petitioner.

4. By inviting the attention of this Court to Section 7 (1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Wom