Virtual Malice: Madras High Court Refuses to Quash Conviction for Offensive Social Media Post

In a significant ruling concerning the limits of digital conduct, the High Court of Judicature at Madras has dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by former MLA S. Ve. Shekar against his conviction for posting derogatory remarks about women journalists on Facebook. Justice P. Velmurugan, presiding over the case, affirmed that the apology tendered by the accused does not erase the criminal offense once the reputations of individuals have been harmed in the public domain.

The Backdrop: A Viral Controversy

The case originated from a Facebook post shared by S. Ve. Shekar, which contained disparaging comments targeting women journalists. The content, widely perceived as an attack on the dignity of women in the media, led to massive public outcry and protests by media professionals.

While the petitioner, a former legislator from the Mylapore constituency, claimed that he was not the original author and had forwarded the message without reading it—asserting he had deleted the post and apologized upon realizing its nature—the prosecution contended otherwise. The matter was initially registered by the Cyber Crime Cell and subsequently moved to the Additional Special Court for the trial of cases related to MPs and MLAs.

The Legal Tug-of-War

The defense argued that the trial court’s judgment suffered from "perversity" in the appreciation of evidence. Key arguments included: * Lack of Certification: The petitioner contested the admissibility of the screenshot of the post (Ex.P-5) due to the absence of a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. * Lack of Intent: The defense maintained that as the message was a forward, the mens rea (criminal intent) required for sections 504 and 509 of the IPC was absent. * Procedural Lapse: The petitioner argued that the trial court failed to properly put incriminating circumstances before him during the Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination.

The Public Prosecutor countered that the petitioner’s actions, confirmed by his own behavior and subsequent public apology, demonstrated full awareness of the content. The state argued that the apology itself served as an indirect admission of knowledge and responsibility.

Judicial Analysis: Accountability Over Apology

Justice P. Velmurugan observed that the scope of a revision court is limited and does not warrant re-appreciating evidence unless there is a clear legal bar or perversity. The Court notably remarked that if an individual forwards a message, they are bound by the consequences of that action.

The Court further clarified that the trial court had followed due procedure, and the lack of a formal 65-B certificate was not a fatal flaw in light of the petitioner’s own admissions regarding the posting.

Key Observations

The judgment offers a stark reminder of the weight of online conduct: * "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." * "The Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment... the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the trial Court, are confirmed."

Final Verdict and Implications

The High Court dismissed the revision petition, confirming the conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial court. In a procedural concession, the Court directed the respondent police not to execute the sentence for 90 days, providing the petitioner an opportunity to approach the Supreme Court.

This judgment reinforces a vital principle in the digital age: social media users cannot immunize themselves from criminal consequences for defamatory content simply by deleting the post or offering a generic apology after the harm is done. The ruling sets a strong precedent for holding public figures accountable for the information they disseminate online.