Madras HC Upholds Conviction for Controversial Social Media Posts Against Journalists

In a significant ruling regarding digital conduct and legal accountability, the Madras High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by former MLA S. Ve. Shekar. The court confirmed the conviction, initially passed by the Additional Special Court for MP/MLA cases, which found the petitioner guilty of disseminating derogatory comments against women journalists on social media.

The Digital Controversy: An Overview

The case originated from a social media post shared by S. Ve. Shekar, which contained widely criticized, derogatory remarks targeting women in the media. Following the backlash, the state initiated proceedings under Sections 504 and 509 of the IPC, alongside the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. While the petitioner admitted to forwarding the content, he maintained that he did so without reading the underlying message and subsequently deleted it, thereby arguing a lack of "mens rea" or criminal intent.

The Defense: Lack of Evidence and Procedural Lapses

Representing the petitioner, the legal counsel mounted a challenge based on technical procedural grounds. Central to their argument was the lack of a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, which is required to authenticate digital evidence in Indian courts. The defense argued that the reliance on a simple screenshot, without proper electronic evidence authentication, rendered the prosecution’s case fatally flawed. Furthermore, the defense highlighted inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the petitioner's subsequent unconditional apology as evidence of his lack of malicious intent.

The Court’s Stance: Intent and Awareness

Justice P. Velmurugan, presiding over the case, took a firm stance on the nature of digital responsibility. The court noted that the petitioner’s act of issuing an apology—even if delivered to the public at large rather than the specific victim—demonstrated an awareness of the message’s content. The court reasoned that in cases where the act of forwarding is admitted, the technical requirement for a Section 65-B certificate becomes peripheral when surrounding evidence clearly establishes the accused's culpability and awareness of the consequences of their digital actions.

Key Observations

The judgment explicitly clarified the threshold for accountability in digital spaces:

• "Knowing fully well and knowing the consequences only, he had forwarded the same. Since there was agitation against the contents, he had tendered apology and removed the message from Facebook."
• "The contents of the message are only about P.W.2 and other journalists and even ultimately, who are depending on the same from the family members/superiors."
• "When once the contents are released and it is also seen by various persons, certainly, the image of the de-facto complainant and other journalists would be degraded and subsequent tendering apology will not remove the image from the public."

Implications for Future Cases

By confirming the lower court’s verdict, the Madras High Court has signaled a strict judicial approach toward the harassment of women via digital platforms. The ruling serves as a reminder that the "forward" button carries legal weight; the dissemination of harmful content, regardless of original authorship, can attract criminal liability when such actions degrade, humiliate, or harass professional individuals. The decision reinforces that public figures are held to higher standards of digital etiquette, and apologies delivered after the fact do not necessarily absolve individuals of the underlying criminal act.