Madras HC Upholds Conviction Under Section 509 IPC for Derogatory Social Media Posts Despite Apology - 2025-10-20

Digital Accountability: Madras High Court Refuses to Quash Conviction for Derogatory Social Content

In a significant ruling regarding the limits of online conduct, the Madras High Court has upheld the conviction of a former Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) for circulating derogatory content about female journalists on social media. Justice P. Velmurugan presided over the case, rejecting arguments that an unconditional apology should serve as an automatic exoneration for criminal acts.

The Backdrop of the Dispute

The litigation stems from a 2019 criminal case initiated by the Cyber Crime Cell against petitioner S. Ve. Shekar. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner posted and shared objectionable commentary on Facebook, targeting female media professionals with the clear intent to humiliate and demean. The case, initially heard by the Additional Special Court for MPs and MLAs in Chennai, saw the petitioner convicted, leading to this criminal revision petition before the High Court.

The Defense: Lack of Intent and Technical Gaps

The petitioner sought to set aside the conviction on several grounds: * Absence of Mens Rea: The defense argued that the petitioner had no criminal intent and had forwarded the message without reading it, subsequently deleting the post upon realizing its offensive nature. * Procedural Lapses: It was contended that the prosecution failed to produce the original message and that the screenshots used as evidence, marked as Ex.P-5, lacked the requisite certification under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. * Prior Settlements: The defense highlighted that similar complaints against the individual had been withdrawn by other complainants upon receipt of an apology, arguing that the pending case should follow suit.

The Prosecution’s Stance: Ignorance is No Defense

The Government Advocate for the respondent argued that the petitioner’s act of sharing content, regardless of whether he authored it, constitutes an offense under the law. The prosecution asserted that the petitioner, by his own admission and actions, was clearly aware of the content he was disseminating. The fact that he offered an apology—even if only in a generic sense—demonstrated an awareness of the gravity of his actions.

Key Observations from the Bench

Justice P. Velmurugan underscored the high threshold for challenging such convictions in a revision petition, noting that the Court must primarily look for perversity in the lower court's appreciation of evidence.

Key highlights from the judgment include:

• "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."
• "Mere tendering apology itself would not be sufficient. 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."
• "A reading of the proceedings under Section 313 Cr.P.C., it shows that the trial Court has posed all the incriminating materials before the petitioner and the petitioner also has understood all the incriminating materials posed before him."

Final Ruling and Its Implications

The High Court ultimately dismissed the revision petition, confirming both the conviction and the sentence. The ruling serves as a stern reminder that the "forwarding culture" on social media does not absolve users of legal responsibility. Most importantly, the Court established that an apology, while an appropriate social gesture, does not operate as a legal shield against criminal liability under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act or the Indian Penal Code.

The Court granted the petitioner a 90-day grace period to file a Special Leave Petition if he so chooses, before the execution of the sentence, reinforcing the message that digital defamation carrys lasting consequences that mere apologies cannot undo.