Digital Malice and the Limits of Apology: Madras HC Upholds Conviction for Social Media Harassment

In a significant ruling regarding the accountability of public figures on social media platforms, the Madras High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by former Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) S. Ve. Shekar. The court upheld the conviction against him for posting derogatory comments targeted at women journalists on Facebook, affirming that a public apology does not absolve an individual of criminal liability for offensive content.

A Case of Digital Misconduct

The case originated from a social media post made by the petitioner, which contained derogatory remarks directed at women journalists. The prosecution argued that these posts were intended to humiliate and destroy the dignity of women in the media profession. The charges brought against the former MLA included 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, as well as provisions under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.

Arguments from the Bench and Bar

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial court erred in relying on a screenshot of the message without the mandatory Section 65-B certificate under the Indian Evidence Act. Furthermore, the defense contended that the petitioner had merely forwarded the message without reading its contents, later deleting it and issuing an apology, which they claimed negated the presence of mens rea (criminal intent).

The prosecution, represented by the Government Advocate, maintained that by forwarding the content, the petitioner implicitly endorsed it. They argued that the petitioner’s awareness of the content’s nature was evidenced by his subsequent actions—deleting the post and issuing an apology following public outcry.

The Court’s Reasoning

Justice P. Velmurugan observed that the revisional jurisdiction of the court is limited and should not interfere unless there is clear perversity in the appreciation of evidence. The Court noted that the petitioner’s act of forwarding the message demonstrated a clear understanding of its consequences.

The Court further clarified that the procedural requirement for an electronic evidence certificate under Section 65-B was satisfied by the prosecution’s evidence, and the trial court’s reliance on the provided materials was legally sound. Crucially, the court emphasized that social media activity carries weight, and once the reputation of individuals is damaged by such posts, a subsequent apology—while perhaps a gesture of remorse—does not operate as a legal defense to erase the commission of an offense.

Key Observations

• On the value of apologies: "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 and subsequent tendering apology will not remove the image from the public."
• On the weight of evidence: "Knowing fully well and knowing the consequences only, he had forwarded the same."
• On judicial scope: "The scope of the revision petition is very limited, and unless the Court finds that there is perversity in appreciation of the evidence or there is legal bar, the revisional Court may not interfere."

Final Verdict and Implications

The High Court has confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. In a move to provide the petitioner with legal recourse, the Court directed the respondent police not to execute the sentence for a period of 90 days, allowing the petitioner time to file a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.

This judgment serves as a stern reminder to public figures and digital users alike: the ephemeral nature of social media does not mitigate the permanence of the harm caused by derogatory posts. Legal accountability, it appears, is as applicable to the digital sphere as it is to the physical realm.