Madras HC Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Posts Against Women Journalists: Crl.R.C.No.497 of 2024 - 2025-01-02

Digital Misconduct: Madras High Court Refuses Relief to Ex-MLA for Derogatory Social Media Posts

In a significant order clarifying the liability of social media users, the Madras High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by former MLA S.Ve. Shekar. The court rejected his plea to set aside a trial court conviction concerning derogatory comments posted against women journalists, emphasizing that digital responsibility cannot be abdicated by claims of ignorance.

The Backdrop of the Dispute

The case stemmed from a Facebook post allegedly made by the petitioner, which contained disparaging remarks about women in the media. The prosecution argued that these remarks were calculated to humiliate the feminine gender and destabilize public tranquility. Originally registered by the Cyber Crime Cell of the Central Crime Branch, the case was transferred to the Additional Special Court designated for MP/MLA cases. In February 2024, the trial court found Shekar guilty 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.

Arguments from the Defense and Prosecution

The petitioner’s counsel contended that the prosecution’s case was riddled with lapses. Key arguments included: * Admissibility of Digital Evidence: The petitioner argued that the trial court erred in relying on a screenshot of the alleged post without a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, rendering the evidence inadmissible. * Lack of Mens Rea: The defense claimed that the petitioner had merely forwarded the message without reading its contents, and that his subsequent deletion of the post and apology demonstrated a lack of criminal intent. * Investigatory Lapses: It was argued that the original author of the content was never brought to book, and the electronic devices of the petitioner were never seized, leaving the chain of evidence incomplete.

Conversely, the State maintained that the admission of forwarding the message, even if claimed to be done "without reading," was insufficient to escape liability. The prosecution argued that as a public figure, the petitioner was expected to exercise due diligence, and his subsequent public apology served as a tacit admission of awareness regarding the content’s nature.

The Court’s Analysis: Responsibility in the Digital Age

Justice P. Velmurugan, presiding over the High Court, dismissed the contentions surrounding the lack of a 65-B certificate, noting that the evidence available, including the petitioner's own admissions and the cross-examination of witnesses, sufficiently established the offence.

The Court further clarified that, under the narrow scope of a criminal revision, appellate courts should not re-appreciate the entire evidence unless there is a clear perversity or legal error. The Court found no such error in the lower court's reasoning, noting that the damage to the reputation of the victim and the media fraternity was a consequence of the petitioner's deliberate actions.

Key Observations

• On Intent and Awareness: "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."
• On the Sufficiency of Apology: "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."
• On the Evidence: "A perusal of the entire cross-examination of P.W.2, it cannot be stated that the petitioner was not aware of the contents of the message."

The Verdict: A Warning for Online Conduct

The High Court has confirmed the conviction and sentence, directing the authorities to secure the petitioner’s custody. However, in a move to allow for potential constitutional recourse, the order grants the petitioner 90 days to approach the Supreme Court before the execution of the sentence. This judgment serves as a stern reminder that the digital space is subject to the same standards of accountability as the public square, and that "forwarding" content remains a legally actionable behavior.