Educational qualification, public stature no defence for derogatory remarks against women: Madras HC

The Madras High Court recently held that scientific eminence, educational qualifications or public accomplishments cannot be cited as a defence in a criminal case concerning derogatory remarks against women [Dr Ponraj v. State].

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan said that persons holding a position of considerable standing in society must exercise greater restraint while making public statements.

“A person possessing scientific eminence, educational qualifications and public accomplishments bears a greater responsibility in public discourse and is expected to refrain from making derogatory or demeaning remarks against women. Such status cannot be pleaded as a defence to seek quashing of the FIR when the allegations, on their face, disclose the commission of cognizable offences,” the Court said.

The Court made the observation while refusing to quash two First Information Reports (FIRs) registered against scientist and political commentator Dr. Ponraj over remarks allegedly made by him against women members of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK).

The complaints concerned an interview telecast on the King 360 YouTube channel on March 18. Ponraj allegedly described women members of the TVK using terms including 'prostitutes' and 'illiterates'. He was also accused of thanking the party leader for having “exposed them”.

The FIRs invoked Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which penalises words, gestures or acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman. Other provisions invoked included Section 353(1)(c) of the BNS, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.

Ponraj argued that he was not a politician but a political commentator and a public voice on Tamil Nadu politics. He highlighted his work as a scientist and his association with former President Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam.

He contended that the complaints were politically motivated and had selectively extracted one expression from the interview without considering its context. He also pointed out that the video had subsequently been removed from YouTube.

However, the Court held that the removal of the video did not erase or nullify the alleged offences.

Significantly, the Court ruled that Section 79 of the BNS was not restricted to statements directed against an individually named woman.

“The expression ‘any woman’ occurring in the provision is not confined to a single named individual,” the Court said.

It added that the provision could apply when offending remarks concerned an identifiable and ascertainable class of women. Women functionaries and volunteers of a registered political party constituted such a class, the Court found.

The Court also held that Section 67 of the Information Technology Act was prima facie attracted since the speech was transmitted electronically and allegedly denigrated the collective dignity and character of the women concerned.

Hence, the Court dismissed both petitions. It directed the police to complete the investigation and file the final reports before the jurisdictional magistrate within 12 weeks.

Senior Advocate NR Elango appeared for Ponraj.

Tamil Nadu government counsel Arun Anbumani represented the police.

Advocate Kripakaran appeared for the complainants.

[Read Judgment]