Madras High Court Denies Relief to Former MLA in Social Media Harassment Case

In a significant ruling regarding the accountability of public figures on social media platforms, the High Court of Judicature at Madras has dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by former MLA S. Ve. Shekar. The judgment confirms the trial court’s conviction of the petitioner for charges related to the circulation of derogatory content targeted at women journalists.

The Background: A Digital Controversy

The case originated from a social media post shared by S. Ve. Shekar, which contained disparaging remarks about women in the media. Following public outcry and protests by journalist organizations, the Cyber Crime Cell registered a case under Sections 504 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.

The case was initially handled by a Metropolitan Magistrate but was subsequently transferred to the Special Court designated for the trial of cases against elected Members of Parliament and Legislative Assembly members in Tamil Nadu.

The Arguments: Evidence and Intent

Before the High Court, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the trial court failed to properly assess the evidence, specifically noting a lack of a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the digital evidence (screenshots). The defense emphasized that Mr. Shekar was merely a forwarder of the content and had no criminal intent (mens rea), citing his eventual removal of the post and his public apology as evidence of good faith.

Conversely, the prosecution, represented by the Government Advocate, argued that by forwarding the content, the petitioner had amplified its reach. The State contended that the petitioner’s awareness of the derogatory nature of the post was evident from the public outcry and his subsequent attempts to mitigate the damage through apologies, which did not indemnify him against criminal liability.

Court’s Legal Analysis

Justice P. Velumurugan addressed the defense’s reliance on the absence of a Section 65-B certificate, noting that the overall weight of the evidence, including the petitioner’s admission of forwarding the post, was sufficient to establish culpability. The Court clarified that digital footprints and established cross-examinations were enough to prove that the petitioner was fully aware of the contents he was circulating.

Key Observations

• On the nature of the apology: "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 criminal liability: "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."
• On judicial scope: "The scope of the revision petition is very limited... the revisional Court has to see as to whether there is any legal bar or there is any perversity in appreciation of the evidence."

The Verdict: A Stand for Dignity

The High Court ultimately found no perversity in the lower court’s reasoning and rejected the plea for acquittal. The conviction and sentence stand confirmed. However, the Court granted the petitioner a 90-day grace period to initiate any potential Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court before the custodial sentence is enforced.

This ruling underscores the judiciary’s stance that public figures bear an heightened responsibility in the digital age, and the act of forwarding defamatory content is not mitigated merely by a subsequent apology, especially when the initial dissemination severely impacts the reputation and dignity of the victims.