Forwarding message equal to endorsing: Madras HC denies S Ve Shekher Anticipatory Bail

The Madras High Court yesterday dismissed an anticipatory bail application moved by BJP leader S Ve Shekher, even as he faces the prospect of being charged for a controversial Facebook post made by him last month..A complaint against Shekher’s post has been registered with the police by the Tamil Nadu Journalist and Protection Association. Among other derogatory comments against women, the Facebook post is said to have stated,.“Recently this disgusting fact has come out through complaints that women cannot become reporters or anchors unless they sleep with top bosses. and with these faces they come out to ask questions to the Governors.“.The Court heard arguments made by nine intervening petitioners from journalistic and social work circles as well, before denying Shekher anticipatory bail. The order passed yesterday made the following pertinent observations to ground its decision..A Forwarded Message is not a Carte Blanche excuse.Justice S Ramathilagam has minced no words in holding that a person cannot evade responsibility for his actions with the excuse that he had merely forwarded a message. The judge remarked,.“Words are more powerful than acts…Forwarded message is equal to accepting the message and endorsing the message.”.Typed messages are more deliberate.As opposed to verbal remarks which may be spoken in the spur of the moment and under emotion, a typed message would denote more lasting consequences. The Court indicated as much when it observed,.“Not all murders are given capital punishment. We look into the circumstances and all related aspects under which the act was done. .Those words used in the message are not said under emotion. People use such words during quarrel and later they may regret but putting things in writing or typing means they know the consequences and do it..… Talking is different from typing. Typing becomes a document, one cannot go back saying that i have not done it.”.Public persons hold higher degree of responsibility for their words.It was emphasised that the consequences following such offensive posts may be graver when they are made by public personalities and leaders, as was the case in this matter. Justice Ramathilagam remarked,.“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 like person forward messages like this, the common public will start believe it that this type of things are going on. This sends a wrong message to the society at a time when we are talking about women empowerment..… After seeing these forwarded words from a person who is popular and has lot of connections with media people for long, the public will look at every working women with a suspicious eye.”.Abusive language is detrimental to the Constitutional rights of women.At the outset, the Court observed that the offence in question was one against the Constitutional rights of women. Further, it was noted that the abusive post was a direct attack against these rights. As stated in the order,.“The language and the words used are not indirect but a direct abusive obscene foul language which is not expected from a person of this calibre and age who claims to be a literate with lot of credential with lot of followers….…No one has any right to abuse women and if done it is a violation of rights. When calling a person with community name itself is a crime, using such unparliamentarily words is more heinous.”.The Court was critical of such comments being circulated to create fear and anxiety among people who want to pursue a career, instead of wiping out the wrong impression about working women among the public. In this context, the Court raised concern,.“If [this is] what is being practiced, no women will come forward to enter into public life. He has only regretted for forwarding but he has not denied what is said in the message. As claimed by him what awareness this message creates in public is?”.To drive the point home, Justice Ramathilagam also remarks,.“If sharing bed is the only way to come up in life then does it include all women who are holding high posts now?”.Ultimately, the Court opines that appropriate responsibility should be fixed for such messages, more so to encourage women to come up in life..“These messages are deleted and not erased. People should not go with a feeling that we can air anything and get away with a word sorry. Women should be encouraged to come up in life because those words are not just on a single person but against a gender and a women means a family [sic].”.The anticipatory bail application was therefore dismissed and the police was directed to proceed with the case in the same way as if they are investigating any other common man..The controversial post came in the backdrop of objections raised against Governor Banwarilal Purohit’s pat-on-cheek moment at a press meet held last month. Controversy had erupted after Governor Purohit chose to pat the cheek of a woman journalist in response to a question posed to him, rather than answer the same..Referring to this incident, Shekher’s Facebook post is also said to have remarked that women journalists were “illiterate rascals without common sense and the reporter concerned was also not an exemption and they could become reporters only by sharing bed with famiilar persons”..In his defence, Shekher had argued that he had posted the forwarded message unintentionally and without knowledge of the offensive content. Shekher claimed that he removed the message as soon as his attention was drawn to the condemnable nature of its content, in addition to rendering an apology..Read order below:.Image taken from here.