Madras High Court Dismisses Revision Filed by Former MLA S. Ve. Shekar, Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Posts - 2026-05-27

Digital Accountability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction in Cyber Harassment Case

In a significant ruling regarding the responsibilities of public figures on digital platforms, the Madras High Court has upheld the conviction of former Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) S. Ve. Shekar. The court dismissed the petitioner's revision plea, effectively confirming the judgment of the special court tasked with handling cases related to elected representatives.

The Backdrop of the Dispute

The case originated from a controversial post shared by the petitioner on Facebook, which contained derogatory remarks targeting women journalists. The prosecution contended that this act was a calculated attempt to humiliate women in the media, thereby unsettling public tranquility. Following the registration of a complaint by a victim journalist, the legal proceedings transitioned from the initial police investigation to a dedicated Special Court for MPs and MLAs.

Arguments from the Defense and State

Representing the petitioner, the defense argued that the investigation was riddled with lapses. The primary contentions included: * Lack of Mens Rea: The petitioner claimed he forwarded the message inadvertently without reading it and subsequently issued an apology. * Evidentiary Issues: The defense challenged the admissibility of a screenshot used by the prosecution, citing a failure to comply with Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. * Inconsistency: The defense highlighted that discrepancies in witness testimony and the failure to seize the petitioner’s electronic devices undermined the prosecution's case.

Conversely, the state argued that the petitioner’s public admission of forwarding the message, combined with the fact that he was aware of the content’s impact, demonstrated clear culpability. The government advocate maintained that the petitioner’s subsequent apology served as an admission of his awareness of the content.

Legal Analysis: The Reality of "Sharing"

The High Court’s reasoning centered on the nature of digital harm. Justice P. Velmurugan observed that the act of "forwarding" content constitutes an active engagement. The court dismissed the petitioner's plea that he was unaware of the message's contents, noting that the immediate public backlash and the petitioner’s own subsequent apology belied that claim.

The court further clarified that while the scope of a revision petition is limited, the evidence presented—including testimonies from multiple witnesses—left no room for doubt regarding the impact of the defamatory content on the reputation of the victims and the broader journalistic fraternity.

Key Observations

The judgment underscores the accountability that comes with digital presence:

> "It cannot be stated that the petitioner was not aware of the contents of the message... Knowing fully well and knowing the consequences only, he had forwarded the same."

> "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."

A Final Judgment

The Madras High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence, directing the authorities to secure the petitioner’s custody for the remaining term of his sentence. However, in a procedural reprieve, the court ordered that the sentence should not be executed for a period of 90 days, providing the petitioner an opportunity to approach the Supreme Court via a Special Leave Petition. This ruling serves as a stark reminder that in the digital age, a "forward" button carries the weight of legal accountability.