Madras HC Upholds Conviction of Former MLA for Harassing Women Journalists Online

In a significant ruling regarding accountability for digital conduct, the High Court of Judicature at Madras has upheld the conviction of former MLA S.Ve. Shekar for sharing derogatory content concerning women journalists on social media. Justice P. Velmurugan dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by the actor-turned-politician, affirming the lower court’s decision regarding his culpability under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.

The Case at a Glance

The case originated from a Facebook post shared by S.Ve. Shekar that contained disparaging remarks about women in the media and the de-facto complainant (P.W.2). The content, which sparked significant public outrage and protests by journalist bodies, prompted a criminal investigation. Although the petitioner argued that he was merely forwarding a message without reading it—and subsequently deleted the post upon realizing its impact—the prosecution maintained that the act was intentional and contributed to causing public alarm.

The case was initially filed before the IInd Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, before being transferred to the Special Court for MPs and MLAs in Chennai, which subsequently convicted the petitioner.

Arguments from the Defense and Prosecution

The petitioner’s legal team raised several procedural objections, primarily focusing on: * Admissibility of Evidence: The counsel argued that the prosecution failed to produce a valid certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, rendering the digital screenshot inadmissible as evidence. * Lack of Content Knowledge: The defense maintained that as a mere forwarder, the petitioner lacked the mens rea or criminal intent to harm or defame, and that he had tendered an unconditional apology. * Inconsistent Testimony: The defense alleged that prosecution witnesses provided contradictory statements regarding the timeline of the post and its subsequent deletion.

Conversely, the State emphasized that an apology, while an acknowledgment of the act, does not absolve the petitioner of legal consequences. The prosecution argued that the petitioner, as an influential public figure, knew the ramifications of spreading such content and that the evidence gathered, including Ex.P-3, was sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Legal Analysis: The Threshold of Digital Responsibility

In his judgment, Justice P. Velmurugan clarified that the scope of a revision petition is limited; the court's primary duty is to assess whether the trial court’s findings suffered from perversity or legal errors. The Court rejected the defense's argument regarding the lack of evidence, noting that the combination of the petitioner's own admission of forwarding the message and cross-examination testimony created a clear picture of culpability.

The Court held that the impact of the post on the public image of women journalists was significant. The mere act of forwarding sensitive or abusive material, knowing it could circulate in the public domain, was found to be sufficient to sustain the charges, regardless of the claim that it was an "uninformed" forward.

Key Observations

The High Court’s ruling underscored the gravity of online harassment:

• "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."
• "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."
• "A perusal of the entire cross-examination of P.W.2, it cannot be stated that the petitioner was not aware of the contents of the message."

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court confirmed the trial court's judgment, dismissing the revision petition. The petitioner has been directed to surrender to custody to undergo the remaining sentence. However, in a move to allow for potential higher appellate recourse, Justice Velmurugan granted the petitioner a 90-day grace period, stipulating that the sentence should not be executed until the expiry of the limitation period for filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court of India.

This decision serves as a stern reminder to social media users, particularly public figures, that the "forwarding" of content does not insulate one from legal liability if that content promotes harassment or violates the dignity of individuals. As digital discourse continues to evolve, this precedent reinforces the judiciary’s stance on maintaining public tranquility and protecting citizens from online abuse.