Madras HC Upholds Conviction for Social Media Harassment: Dismisses Revision in S.Ve. Shekar Case - 2026-05-27

Digital Accountability: Madras High Court Affirms Conviction in Social Media Harassment Case

In a significant ruling regarding digital conduct and the safety of the press, the Madras High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by former Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) S.Ve. Shekar. The court upheld the lower court's conviction against him for posting derogatory comments targeting women journalists on social media, emphasizing that the digital sphere carries serious legal responsibilities.

The Backdrop of the Dispute

The case originated from a controversial social media post made by the petitioner on Facebook, which contained offensive remarks regarding female journalists. The prosecution alleged that the post was characterized by a clear intent to humiliate women in the media and undermine their professional dignity, subsequently leading to public agitation.

Following a charge sheet filed by the Cyber Crime Cell, the petitioner was convicted under Sections 504 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. The petitioner challenged this conviction, arguing, among other things, that the electronic evidence—specifically a screenshot of the post—was inadmissible due to the lack of an accompanying certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act.

Arguments from the Bench and Bar

The petitioner’s counsel contended that the prosecution’s case was riddled with lapses, including an inconsistency in witness testimony and the failure to seize the actual electronic devices involved. Furthermore, the defense argued that the petitioner had no criminal intent, noting that the message was merely "forwarded" without malicious intent, and an apology was promptly issued once the controversy arose.

The State, represented by the Government Advocate, countered that the petitioner’s awareness of the content was evidenced by his subsequent actions—specifically his withdrawal of the post and his public, albeit generalized, apology. The State argued that once the petitioner disseminated the content, he assumed responsibility for its impact, which caused measurable harm to the reputation of the victims.

Judicial Reasoning: The Weight of Digital Actions

Justice P. Velmurugan, presiding over the case, underscored that the scope of a revision petition is limited, and the court’s role is not to perform a wholesale re-appreciation of evidence unless there is clear perversity in the lower court’s findings.

The Court rejected the argument regarding the insufficiency of electronic evidence. It noted that the petitioner's own conduct—acknowledging the receipt of feedback and the subsequent removal of the post—nullified the claim that he was unaware of the content’s nature.

Key Observations

The judgment clarifies the judiciary's firm stance on online harassment:

• "A reading of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, especially the cross-examination of the petitioner, clearly shows that the petitioner had forwarded the Facebook message and he was well aware of the contents..."
• "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 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. In a procedural gesture, the court directed that the sentence remain suspended for 90 days to allow the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court. This judgment serves as a stern reminder that "forwarding" derogatory content on social media is not an innocent act, but one that can attract criminal liability when it serves to harass or demean individuals. For legal professionals and the public alike, this case reinforces the principle that social media platforms are subject to the same standards of decency and legal accountability as any public forum.