Conviction Under IPC Sections 504 and 509 Upheld: Madras HC Affirms Liability for Derogatory Social Media Content - 2026-05-29

Digital Accountability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post

In a significant ruling regarding digital responsibility and the protection of gender dignity, the Madras High Court has dismissed a criminal revision plea filed by S. Ve. Shekar, a former Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA). The court upheld his conviction for circulating derogatory content against women journalists on social media, reinforcing the legal stance that digital dissemination of offensive material carries strict liability.

The Conflict of Content

The case originated from a controversial message posted on Facebook by the petitioner, which targeted women journalists and the de facto complainant (P.W.2). The prosecution alleged that the post was drafted with the clear intent to humiliate and demean the feminine gender, thereby disturbing public peace.

Following a public outcry and protests by media professionals, the petitioner deleted the message and issued an apology. He subsequently challenged his conviction in the lower courts, arguing that he was not the original author of the post and that his "unconditional apology" negated any criminal mens rea (guilty intent).

Arguments of the Parties

For the Petitioner: Counsel argued that the trial court failed to account for serious investigative lapses. Key contentions included: * The prosecution failed to produce the original electronic device. * The absence of the mandatory Section 65-B certificate under the Indian Evidence Act rendered the digital screen-shots inadmissible. * The petitioner’s withdrawal of other similar complaints through apology demonstrated a lack of criminal intention.

For the Respondent: The Government Advocate maintained that the act of forwarding the message confirmed the petitioner's awareness of the content. They argued that the petitioner essentially "re-affirmed" the reputation-damaging content, and an apology post-facto does not negate the criminality of the original act.

Legal Analysis: Intent vs. Apology

Justice P. Velmurugan, presiding over the case, clarified several critical legal aspects. The court observed that the petitioner was fully aware of the consequences of his actions. Crucially, the court held that a public apology does not scrub the record of an offense once the damage to the dignity of the victims has occurred.

Regarding the technical challenge concerning Section 65-B, the court noted that the evidence on record, including the cross-examination of the victim and the petitioner’s own admissions, sufficiently authenticated the nature of the offense, making the procedural objection untenable.

Key Observations

The High Court’s judgment highlights the gravity of online harassment:

• "A reading of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, especially the cross-examination of the petitioner, clearly shows that the petitioner had forwarded the Facebook message and he was well aware of the contents."
• "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... would be degraded."
• "Knowing fully well and knowing the consequences only, he had forwarded the same."

The Verdict and Its Implications

The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no perversity in the trial court's appreciation of evidence. The court directed the petitioner to undergo the remainder of his sentence, though it provided a 90-day grace period for the petitioner to pursue a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court .

This ruling stands as a stark reminder for public figures and netizens alike: the "forward" button is not a neutral act. In the eyes of the law, circulating defamatory or demeaning content constitutes a voluntary act of harassment, and the defense of ignorance or subsequent apology holds limited weight when the reputation of individuals is at stake.