Madras High Court denies Anticipatory Bail to S Ve Shehar for making derogatory comment about women on Social Media

Must Read

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish...

Follow us

The anticipatory bail application of actor-turned-politician S. Ve. Shekhar was rejected by Madras High Court on Thursday. S. Ve. Shekhar had shared a derogatory post about women journalists.

Facts of the Case

The Facebook post titled Madurai University, Governor and virgin woman’s cheeks came after a female correspondent of English magazine accused the Governor of Tamil Nadu of touching her inappropriately. BJP party member Mr. S. Ve. Shekhar had shared the same facebook post which used harsh words and portrayed all working women in bad light. Actor turned politician before sharing the post, wrote that “I feel pity while looking at that woman journalist. She claims she was disturbed because the governor touched her. But when you read her tweets, it is understood that her intention was to target the Governor and Modi. It is actually the governor who has to wash his hands with Phenyl after touching her. These (TN media persons) are cheap and disgusting creatures. Most people who work in the media in TN are usually Illiterate, cheap and don’t have any general knowledge. This woman is not any different.” Facebook post in question alleged that women journalists sleep with top bosses to get top positions.

  1. Ve. Shekhar moved to Madras High Court in April seeking anticipatory bail after being booked by the Cyber Crime Cell of the Central Crime Branch in Chennai. Shekhar was booked under section 504 and section 505(1) (c), section 509 and section 509 and section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act and Indian Penal Code. Mr. Shekhar in his defence quotes that he does not endorse the views expressed in the said message and is totally upset as he himself is from a family that respects women and women journalists.

The decision of the Court

Justice S. Ramathilagam rejected his application for anticipatory bail and said that “What is said is important but who has said it is very important in a society because people respect persons for the social status. When a celebrity forwards a message like this, the common people will start to believe it.”

“This would send a wrong message to the society at a time when we are talking about women empowerment. The language and words used are not indirect but a direct abusive foul language which is not expected from a person of his calibre and age.” The judge further added that “Daily we see young emotional boys getting arrested for doing these type of activities in the social media. Law is the same for everyone and people should not lose faith in the judiciary. Mistakes and crimes are not same. Only children can make mistakes which can be pardoned. If the same is done by elderly people, it becomes an offence.”

The post was deleted after it was realized that it created a massive storm but some journalist had already shared it on social media platforms condemning it vehemently.

Learning of the Case

From this case, we learn that Law is same for everyone and no one can get away after breaking the law that the message forwarded on social media amounts to accepting and endorsing it.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -