Digital Accountability: Madras HC Affirms Conviction in Journalist Harassment Case

The Madras High Court has sent a stern message regarding digital responsibility, upholding the conviction of former Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) S. Ve. Shekar for posting derogatory content against women journalists on social media. Justice P. Velmurugan dismissed the revision petition, reinforcing the principle that public figures bear responsibility for the content they disseminate online, regardless of claims of ignorance regarding the shared material.

A Case of Digital Defamation

The proceedings originated from a case filed by the Cyber Crime Cell of the Central Crime Branch, Chennai, alleging that the petitioner had circulated a message on Facebook intended to humiliate and demean women in the media industry. The prosecution argued that this conduct disrupted public peace and tranquility. While the trial court had initially convicted the former MLA 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 decision, claiming procedural lapses during the trial.

Arguments on Liability and Evidence

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the trial court failed to appreciate the absence of a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, rendering the digital screenshots inadmissible. Furthermore, the defense contended that the petitioner lacked mens rea (criminal intent) and had merely forwarded a message received from another source without reading it. The defense also pointed to the petitioner's later issuance of an apology as evidence of absence of malicious intent.

Conversely, the State argued that the petitioner’s actions, including the subsequent public apology after significant backlash from journalist groups, demonstrated full cognizance of the message’s inflammatory nature. The respondent maintained that the evidence—specifically the petitioner’s admission of sharing the content—was sufficient to prove the charges, and that the appellate court should not re-examine evidence where no perversity is found.

Key Observations

The judgment clarifies that an apology does not necessarily absolve an accused of criminal liability, particularly when the initial act caused widespread harm to the reputation of the victims. Justice P. Velmurugan noted:

> "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."

Addressing the defense regarding the lack of knowledge of the content, the Court observed:

> "It is unbelievable that after receiving certain response from the Facebook, the petitioner, without reading the contents, simply deleted his message and therefore, the petitioner was not aware of the contents."

Regarding the dignity of the complainants, the Court emphasized:

> "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 and subsequent tendering apology will not remove the image from the public."

Final Verdict: Law Over Digital Convenience

The High Court ultimately affirmed the trial court’s decision, directing the custody of the petitioner to be secured for the remaining period of his sentence. Significantly, the Court granted a 90-day grace period to allow the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court, ensuring due process is maintained.

The decision serves as a critical precedent in the landscape of Indian digital law, signaling that "forwarding" derogatory content, whether read or unread, carries legal weight. It reinforces the standard that the reach of social media necessitates higher levels of caution, and "ignorant forwarding" is an insufficient shield against charges of harassment and defamation.