Madras High Court Refuses To Interfere With Conviction Of Actor-Politician S. Ve Shekar For Comments Against Women Journalists

Justice P Velmurugan noted that though Shekar had apologized, an apology itself would not be sufficient. The court added that once the contents are released and seen by persons, the complainants would be degraded and apologising would not remove the image from the public.

“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. Therefore, this is a fit case where the petitioner has to be convicted,” the court said.

In February 2024, the Additional Sessions Court for Trial of Cases Related to MPs and MLAs of Tamil Nadu convicted Shekar for making offensive posts against women journalists. The special court sentenced him to one-month simple imprisonment and a fine of RS. 2500/- for the offence under S. 504 IPC and one-month simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2500/- for the offence under Section 509 of the IPC. He has also been sentenced to one month simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000 for the offence under S. 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act 2002. The cases were registered after Sheker had forwarded an abusive, derogatory and vulgar comment on his Facebook account in April 2018.

Though Shekher had previously approached the Madras High Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him, the court refused to grant him relief.

Seeking a revision of the order, Shekar argued that the special court had failed to note the serious lapses in the investigation and that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubts. It was also contended that the original forwarded message was never produced before the court.

Shekar also argued that the screenshot of the forwarded message was produced in the court without a certificate under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act and thus its authenticity was never established through scientific means. He thus argued that the screenshot had been rendered inadmissible in evidence. Shekar also submitted that he had no criminal intention or mens rea to commit any such offence.

The court was however not inclined to accept the submissions and noted that Shekar had forwarded the message with full knowledge of its content and consequences. The court also added that once the prosecution has proved that the petitioner has sent the message in Facebook, certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was not necessary.

Thus, noting that there was no reason to interfere with the order of the trial court, the court dismissed the revision application filed by Shekar.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Venkatesh Mahadevan

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. S. Vinoth Kumar, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)

Case Title: S Ve Shekar v State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 1

Case No: Crl. R. C.No.497 of 2024