Madras High Court Quashes Case Against Rajya Sabha MP C Shanmugam For Alleged Derogatory Comments Against Women

The woman's commission had initiated the case based on a complaint that in one of his speeches to the party cadres, Shanmugam had stated that the present Government may even announce one wife free to each citizen.

Justice AD Jagadish Chandira noted that the speech, by no stretch of imagination, could be seen as misogynistic or demeaning the womenfolk of the State, but was only a critique of the freebee policy of the State government. The court noted that it cannot be said that Shanmugan had compared women to commodities given by the State Government.

“Having gone through the petitioner's aforesaid speech, this Court is of the considered view that the same cannot be, by any stretch of imagination, construed to be misogynistic in nature or demeaning the womenfolk of the State as contended by the private respondents and instead, it can only be construed as a critique of the policy of the Government giving freebies. Just because of the fact that the petitioner had stated that along with other commodities, the Government may announce even one wife free to each citizen, it can no way be inferred or understood that the petitioner, by his speech, has equated women with commodities given by the Government gratis,” the court said.

The State commission had a complaint and also recommended the DGP to initiate criminal prosecution against Shanmugam under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sahita and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998. Both the proceedings and the recommendation were challenged in the present plea.

Shanmugam argued that the summons dated October 24, 2025, was issued unilaterally without the concurrence of members of the commission and also without authentication by the Member Secretary of the Commission, which was against the provisions of the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women Act.

It was submitted that, as per Section 7(1)(a) of the Act, the commission ought to have conducted an investigation, which was not done in the present case. It was also pointed out that, as per Section 9(3) of the Act, all orders and decisions of the commission should be authenticated by the Member Secretary or any other officer of the commission duly authorised by the Member Secretary on his behalf. He argued that in the present case, these provisions were given a complete go by.

It was also argued that the summons was issued without a copy of the complaint, denying Shanmugam an opportunity to put forth his defence. It was also argued that the alleged speech was made not in public but in a meeting of party cadres, and even if it was to be taken at face value, no offence was made out.

The State argued that the provisions of the Act were duly followed in the present case. It was submitted that the proceedings were initiated by the quorum of three members and not by the Chairperson unilaterally, as alleged by Shanmugam. It was also submitted that the recommendation was sent to the DGP only after a prima facie enquiry. It was also submitted that there was no need to supply a copy along with the complaint, as the commission dealt with matters related to women's rights and protection, which may even include sexual offences, and thus maintained confidentiality.

The court was, however, not inclined to accept this contention. The court noted that the notice issued to Shanmugam contained the details of the complainant. The court thus noted that the commission could not blow both hot and cold and refuse to give a copy of the complaint by citing confidentiality.

The court also noted that there was nothing to show that a preliminary enquiry had been conducted in the present case. The court also noted that the notice and recommendation only contained the signature of the Chairperson and not other members of the commission. The court thus held that the proceedings initiated by the commission and the communication sent to the DGP could not be sustained in law.

Thus, noting the procedural irregularities and that the speech did not constitute any offence as alleged, the court was inclined to quash the same.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. M. Mohamed Riyaz

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. David Sundar Singh Standing Counsel, Mr. K. M. D. Muhilan Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. K.C. Karl Marx

Case Title: C. Ve. Shanmugam v. The Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 92

Case No: W.P.(Crl.)No.1418 of 2025