Madras High Court Reserves Order On V Ponraj's Anticipatory Bail Plea In FIR Over Alleged Derogatory Remarks Against TVK Women Supporters

The Madras High Court has reserved orders on two anticipatory bail pleas filed by political commentator and scientist V Ponraj in a case related to alleged defamatory statements against women supporters of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party. 

Justice R Sakthivel reserved the orders after hearing Senior Advocate NR Elango for Ponraj and State Public Prosecutor John Sathyan. 

It is alleged that on March 27, 2026, while giving 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. 

In his plea, 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. 

He submitted that after he was misquoted, he started receiving threatening calls from supporters of the party, including attempt to murder calls, and there was serious threat to his life. He submitted that though he had given a counter complaint seeking action against CM Vijay and other members of the party for criminal threatening, cybercrime, and defamation, no action had been taken till date. 

Ponraj argued that a false case was foisted against him and there were no ingredients for the offences. He said that the present case was a misuse of political power as a tool for political vendetta. 

When the case was taken up on Thursday, Senior Advocate Elango 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. 

After hearing the parties, the court said that it would pass orders tomorrow, if a vacation sitting is permitted by the Chief Justice. 

Case Title: Dr V Ponraj v State of TN

Case No: Crl OP 13278 of 2026