Madras High Court Reserves Orders On V Ponraj's Plea To Quash FIR Over Remarks Against TVK Women Supporters

The Madras High Court, on Monday (July 13), reserved orders on two petitions filed by political commentator and scientist V Ponraj, seeking to quash the FIR registered against him for allegedly defamatory statements made by him against women supporters of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan reserved orders after hearing Senior Advocate NR Elango for Ponraj and Arun Anbumani for the State.

It may be noted that a vacation bench of the High Court had granted him anticipatory bail, noting that a custodial interrogation might not be necessary in the case. The court had, however, stated that Ponraj should have been more careful while making statements in public, understanding the potential impact of his words and how it would be received by the public.

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 a complaint made by Thiruparankundram MLA and current Energy Resources and Law Minister Nirmal Kumar, a case was registered for offences under Section 79 and Section 296(b) of the BNS and Section 67 of the IT Act, along with provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. Seeking to quash this FIR, Ponraj has now approached the High Court.

When the matter came up for hearing on Monday, Elango argued that the ingredients to maintain the sections would not be attracted. He submitted that Ponraj was replying to a question put to him during an interview with a YouTube channel. It was submitted that he had no intention to insult any woman. 

It was submitted that Ponraj had written to the Commissioner of Police, explaining the situation in which he made the comment. It was also argued that even before the registration of the FIR, the alleged video was removed from the YouTube Channel. Ponraj also submitted that after the interview, the members of TVK had orchestrated a social media campaign against him and threatening calls were made against him and his family. He argued that although he had filed a police complaint against TVK head Chief Minister Vijay and party leaders Aadhav Arjuna, Rajmohan, Loyola Mani, and Nanjil Sampath for criminal intimidation, cybercrime, and defamation, no action had been taken to date.

Ponraj argued that the case was a clear misuse of political power as a tool of political vendetta, to silence legitimate political criticism which was protected under free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

It was further submitted that one of the essential ingredients to bring home the offence under Section 79 of the BNS was the intention to insult the modesty of any woman. He submitted that Ponraj had no such intention and was only talking about the conduct of certain women in the party. He also argued that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women would not be attracted as the law punished a person for making statements in the precincts of any educational institution, temple or other place of worship, bus stop, road, railway station, cinema theatre, park, beach, place of festival, public service vehicle, vessel or any other place. He submitted that in the present case, the statement was not made in any such place and thus the Act was not attracted.

The State, however, objected to quashing the FIR and argued that persons like Ponraj, who held a stature in the society, should not have spoken like any person walking on the streets. It was submitted that it had become an usual practice for persons to say whatever they want and then come to the court arguing that there was no intention.

"I don't know why we are belittling such a remark against women. Even today, he has not shown any remorse. Whether he is a politician or a common man does not matter. He makes a statement which is widely available even today. Other political parties will also use this to belittle the women folk of the party. He shouldn't come to court saying he didn't mean it. It has become a habit for people to say whatever they want and then come to court saying they didn't mean it. There should be an end to this," the State counsel argued.

With respect to the ingredients, the State argued that there was an identifiable group of persons, as the statement was made against the women supporters of a particular party. It was submitted that Ponraj had gone for the interview and made statements knowing that it will be used to increase the views. Thus, the state argued that the sections, as alleged, stood attracted and opposed the quashing of the FIR.

After hearing the parties, the court has now reserved orders.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.N.R.Elango, Senior Counsel for Mr.A.S.Aswin Prasanna

Counsel for Respondents: Mr.Arun Anbumani Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

Case Title: Dr Ponraj v State

Case No: Crl OP No 15258 of 2026