Forwarding Derogatory Content on Social Media Attracts Criminal Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction Under IPC Sections 504 and 509 - 2025-01-02

Digital Responsibility: Madras HC Reaffirms Limits on "Forwarding" Derogatory Content

In a significant ruling regarding digital accountability, the Madras High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by former MLA S. Ve. Shekar, confirming his conviction for circulating offensive content targeting women journalists. The judgment, delivered by Mr. Justice P. Velmurugan on January 2, 2025, underscores that social media users cannot insulate themselves from legal liability by claiming they merely "forwarded" content without internalizing the malice.

Case Background: The "Forwarded" Offense

The prosecution's case centered on a Facebook post shared by the petitioner, which contained derogatory remarks aimed at female journalists. The content, which sought to humiliate women in the media profession, triggered widespread public outrage and protests. Despite the petitioner's argument that he did not author the original message and had deleted the post following criticism, the State maintained that the act of forwarding the content in itself constituted an attempt to undermine public order and insult the modesty of women. The case, initially heard by the Additional Special Court for the trial of MP/MLA cases in Chennai, saw a conviction under Sections 504 and 509 of the IPC, alongside Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.

Arguments: Intent vs. Unawareness

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the trial court ignored critical lapses in investigation, particularly regarding the lack of a Section 65-B certificate under the Indian Evidence Act for the electronic evidence submitted. He maintained that the absence of mens rea —evidenced by the petitioner’s subsequent apology—should exempt him from criminal culpability.

Conversely, the Government Advocate noted that the petitioner’s acknowledgment of the post and his subsequent attempt to apologize effectively corroborated his awareness of the content. The prosecution argued that, regardless of authorship, verifying and disseminating injurious material falls squarely within the ambit of criminal harassment.

Key Observations

The judgment clarifies that an apology does not act as a legal shield against the commission of a crime. As noted by the Court:

• "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."
• "A thorough perusal and reading of the cross-examination of P.W.2 that the offence(s) against the petitioner, is made out and the prosecution also has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts."

A Legal Precedent for the Digital Age

The Court firmly dismissed the attempt to distinguish the case from previous rulings, stating that the evidence put forth by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the petitioner's awareness of the post’s contents. By confirming the conviction, the Madras High Court has reinforced the principle that individuals are legally responsible for the material they propagate online.

While the court confirmed the sentence, it granted the petitioner a 90-day grace period before the execution of the sentence, allowing him the procedural window to approach the Supreme Court. This ruling serves as a stern reminder that in the digital sphere, the act of "sharing" or "forwarding" carries the same weight of responsibility as the act of original posting, particularly when the content targets the dignity of individuals.

---

Disclaimer: This article provides a summary of the court judgment for informational purposes and is not intended as legal advice.