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.

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.

When the matter had come up for hearing, Senior Advocate NR Elango, appearing for Ponraj, 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. It 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.

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.

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.

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 322

Case No: Crl OP No 15258 of 2026