Madras High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Ponraj For Remarks On TVK Women Supporters But Says He Should Have Exercised Caution

Justice R Sakthivel was inclined to grant anticipatory bail after noting that Ponraj had deep rots in the society and was not likely to abscond. Thus, noting that a custodial interrogation might not be necessary in the case, the court granted bail. However, the court has asked Ponraj to appear before the Cuddalore Police once every week and to appear and sign before the CCB Cyber Crime Wing Chennai twice every week.

“Considering the nature of the offences alleged against the petitioner / accused and the facts and circumstances of this case, as well as the fact that the petitioner has deep roots in the society and his possibility of absconding is less, this Court is of the considered view that custodial interrogation may not be necessary for the investigation agency in both the criminal cases. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner / accused however subject to certain conditions,” the court said.

While the court refrained from commenting on Ponraj's intention while making the statement, it said that Ponraj, who claimed to be a respectable person in society, should have been careful during a public interview, understanding the potential impact of his words and how it would be received by the public.

“The intent of the petitioner / accused behind the material statements is a matter for trial and no comments can be expressed on the same at this stage by this Court. However, the petitioner / accused who claims to be a respectable personality in the society and a responsible political commentator, should be very careful during a public interview understanding the potential impact of his words and how they would be received by the general public,” the court said.

The court added that in today's digital world, a statement made cannot be easily withdrawn. It further said that Ponraj should have exercised utmost care and caution while making such remarks, which could turn morally provocative.

“In today's digital era, once a statement is made, that too in a digital platform, it cannot be easily withdrawn. Though the petitioner / accused claims his statement to be one of societal interest, he ought to have exercised utmost care and caution before making a statement which could turn out to be morally provocative one. A person who claims to be of a high stature, must exercise some self-restriction before expressing / delivering words in public forum,” the court said.

It is alleged that on March 27, 2026, while giving an interview to a YouTube channel, when asked about the conduct of certain members of TVK Women's wing online, Ponraj made highly derogatory remarks against women supporters of TVK. TVK President and Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Joseph Vijay had also condemned the remarks and sought action against Ponraj.

Based on complaints by TVK functionaries, cases were registered against Ponraj for offences under Sections 79, 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women (TNPHW) Act and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Apprehending arrest in the case, Ponraj had moved the High Court seeking anticipatory bail.

Ponraj argued that the statements were not directed against any particular group but was a criticism of the social disorder which was being propagated online. It was argued that his speech was selectively extracted, edited, and misrepresented.

Senior Advocate NR Elango, appearing for Ponraj, argued that even before the complaint was lodged, Ponraj had sent representation to the Director General of Police, informing him about his intention while making the speech. It was argued that there was no intention on Ponraj's part and thus an essential ingredient to bring home the case was missing.

Opposing the grant of anticipatory bail plea, State PP John Sathyan argued that the question here was with respect to the statements made by persons in such stature. He pointed out that after making the statement, it was withdrawn following public outrage. Sathyan argued that Ponraj's explanation came at a later stage, when the damage was already done.

Sathyan further argued that if Ponraj was given the benefit of an anticipatory bail, it would lead to social disorder with every person coming and making such derogatory statements.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. N. R. Elango Senior Counsel Assisted by Mr. Agilesh Kumar

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. R. John Sathyan Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Dr.Ponraj v State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 222

Case No: W.P(MD)No.9457 of 2026