Social Media Forwardings No Defense from Criminal Harassment Charges: Madras HC Confirms S. Ve. Shekar Conviction - 2025-01-02

Digital Accountability: Madras HC Upholds S. Ve. Shekar’s Conviction for Social Media Harassment

In a significant ruling regarding the accountability of public figures on digital platforms, the Madras High Court has upheld the conviction of former MLA S. Ve. Shekar under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. Justice P. Velmurugan, presiding over the case, dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner, finalizing a legal battle that centered on the liability of "forwarding" inflammatory content online.

The Case Background

The case dates back to 2019, following a Facebook post shared by the petitioner that included derogatory and objectionable commentary directed at women journalists. The prosecution argued that this content was intended to humiliate and destroy the dignity of women in the media, thereby impacting public peace. While the petitioner initially argued he was not the author of the post and merely passed it on without reading it, the prosecution maintained that the content was disseminated with full knowledge of its harmful implications.

Arguments at a Glance

The petitioner, represented by legal counsel, challenged the trial Court's decision on multiple procedural grounds. The defense primary arguments included: * Procedural Lapses: The failure of the prosecution to produce the original electronic device. * Evidence Admissibility: The absence of a Section 65-B certificate under the Indian Evidence Act to authenticate the screenshot of the post. * Lack of Mens Rea: The petitioner claimed he had no criminal intent, noting that he removed the post and issued an apology immediately upon realizing the content's nature.

Conversely, the prosecution contended that the admission of forwarding, coupled with the immediate public agitation, proved the petitioner was well-aware of the message's content. The State argued that mere apology does not absolve one from the criminal liability of having disseminated the content in the public domain.

Legal Analysis: The Bench’s Stance

Justice P. Velmurugan’s analysis focused on the nature of digital responsibility. The Court noted that the act of forwarding a message on social media cannot be dismissed as a passive or accidental occurrence.

The Court distinguished the current matter from precedents cited by the defense ( Ravinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Randeep Singh alias Rana v. State of Haryana ), finding them factually inapplicable. A critical point of the judgment was the Court's observation on the sufficiency of evidence; specifically, that the petitioner’s own conduct and the surrounding evidence established that he had acknowledged the content of the message. The Court emphasized that when a public figure amplifies such content, they cannot hide behind the excuse of mere ignorance to escape the consequences of the resulting social damage.

Key Observations

• "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."
• "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."
• "A thorough perusal and reading of the cross-examination of P.W.2 that the offence(s) against the petitioner, is made out and the prosecution also has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts."

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court confirmed the conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial Court. The judgment serves as a stern reminder that digital platforms hold users accountable for the content they choose to circulate. By rejecting the plea to set aside the conviction, the Court has reinforced that public platforms carry an inherent responsibility, and those who use them to disseminate derogatory content will face the full weight of the law, regardless of subsequent apologies or claims of accidental sharing.

The respondent police have been directed to secure the petitioner’s custody, though a 90-day window has been granted for the petitioner to seek further relief from the Supreme Court.