Madras HC Affirms Conviction: Digital Echoes of Defamation Cannot be Erased by Apology

In a significant reinforcement of judicial standards regarding digital conduct, the Madras High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by former MLA S. Ve. Shekar, upholding his conviction for propagating derogatory comments against women journalists. The ruling underscores that in the age of viral content, intent is inferred from actions, and a later apology does not negate the criminality of an offensive social media post.

The Backdrop of the Dispute

The case originated from a controversial social media post by S. Ve. Shekar, which disparaged women journalists and arguably undermined the dignity of the profession. The content sparked widespread protest, leading the Central Crime Branch’s Cyber Crime Cell to register a case under Sections 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) and 509 (word, gesture, or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code , alongside Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 .

Following a conviction by the Assistant Sessions Judge in the Special Court for MPs and MLAs , the petitioner sought relief from the High Court, challenging the admissibility of the electronic evidence and questioning the prosecution’s findings.

Arguments from the Bench and Bar

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the trial court failed to adhere to the mandate of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act , asserting that the screenshots provided were inadmissible without the required certification. Furthermore, the defense contended that the petitioner had merely forwarded the message without intent, and subsequently removed it and offered an unconditional apology, effectively nullifying any alleged mens rea .

Conversely, the prosecution maintained that the petitioner was fully aware of the contents of the message he chose to disseminate. They argued that the public nature of the platform meant that the damage to the reputations of the affected women journalists was immediate and profound, rendering a belated apology legally insufficient to erase the harm caused.

Judicial Reasoning: A Narrow Scope for Revision

Justice P. Velmurugan, presiding over the matter, emphasized the limited scope of a revisional court , noting that it should not engage in an independent re-appreciation of evidence unless there is clear perversity. The Court dismissed the challenge regarding the lack of a certificate, finding that the testimonial evidence provided enough substance to confirm the petitioner’s awareness of the post’s contents.

The Court took a firm stance on the nature of digital harm. Justice Velmurugan clarified that the reputation of victims in the media field cannot be repaired by mere apologies once the harm is already public.

Key Observations

The judgment offers critical insights into how courts view digital accountability:

• On Intent: "Knowing fully well and knowing the consequences only, he had forwarded the same."
• 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 Judicial Review: "The revisional Court need not re-appreciate the entire evidence independently. The scope of the revision petition is very limited."

Impact of the Decision

By confirming the conviction, the Madras High Court has sent a clear signal: the digital space does not grant immunity from the consequences of harassment. The reliance on the petitioner's own admission—that he distributed the content—proved fatal to his defense. For future cases, this ruling establishes that the act of forwarding inflammatory content, even without original authorship, carries heavy legal weight.

The Court has ordered the trial court to secure the custody of the petitioner to complete his sentence, providing a 90-day window for any potential appeal to the Supreme Court . This case stands as a reminder that in the eyes of the law, what goes online stays online, and the legal repercussions follow accordingly.