Person Forwarding Social Media Message Liable For Its Contents : Madras High Court Refuses To Quash Criminal Cases Against S.Ve Shekhar

Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that Shekher was a person of high stature with many followers and he ought to have exercised more caution while forwarding messages.

"The more a person is popular in the society, he also carries more responsibility in what he conveys to the society. The petitioner, in the instant case, falls under the category of a person of high stature with many followers and he ought to have exercised more caution before forwarding the message from his Facebook account. If such a caution has been thrown to the winds and as a result, it has had a very serious impact, the petitioner has to necessarily face it and cannot try to run away from the consequences by merely tendering an unconditional apology," the court noted.

Though Shekher claimed that he had merely forwarded the message received from one Mr Thirumalai Sa without reading its contents, and had later removed the derogatory post on the same day and offered apologies, the court noted that these acts would not help Shekher from facing consequences for forwarding a derogatory message.

The court added that we live in an era where social media has virtually taken over every individual’s life where each message can reach the nook and corner of the world in no time. The court added that we were no suffering from “virtual diarrhoea” where we were bombarded with messages. Thus, the court added that every person must exercise social responsibility while creating or forwarding a message.

“We are now suffering from a virtual information diarrhoea where everyone is bombarded with messages. Hence, what is exchanged as a message in the social media, can have a very big influence within a short time. That is the reason as to why a person must exercise social responsibility while creating or forwarding a message. This is more so when the person concerned, by virtue of his position, can really influence the minds of the general public. A message sent/forwarded becomes a permanent evidence and it is almost impossible to wriggle out of the consequence that falls out by sending or forwarding a message,” the court observed.

Person Liable for forwarding offensive message

Noting that a message sent/forwarded is like an "arrow which has already been shot from the bow", the court observed that once the damage was done, the sender could not wriggle out of the same by offering an apology.

“A message that is sent or forwarded in the social media is like an arrow, which has already been shot from the bow. Till that message remains with the sender, it is within his control. Once it is sent, it is like the arrow, which has already been shot and the sender of the message must take the ownership for the consequences of the damage done by that arrow (message). Once the damage is done, it will become very difficult to wriggle out of the same by issuing an apology statement,” Justice Venkatesh observed.

The court noted that in the present case, the message forwarded by Shekher caused an insult to journalists, and more particularly to women journalists which also resulted in a demonstration in front of his house and violence. Thus, the court noted that all the ingredient necessary to satisfy the offence of S.504 IPC (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) existed and the offence was made out.

The court added that the message forwarded by Shekher induced commission of an offence against public tranquility since there was a hue and cry across the State immediately after the incident. Thus the court noted that the offence under S.505(1)(c) IPC was also made out.

Since the message posted by Shekher virtually outrages the modesty of woman and since it also contained indecent and vitriolic attack on a particular woman and other women Press reporters, the offences under S. 509 IPC and S.4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 were also attracted.

Person forwarding social media message liable for its contents

The court added that a person forwarding a message must be construed to acknowledge the contents of the message. The court said that when a person got a dopamine high by looking at the likes for the forwarded message, he should be equally prepared to face the consequence, if that message had derogatory content.

"A person, who forwards the message, must be construed to acknowledge the contents of the message and that is the main reason as to why he forwards that message to others. In other words, the recipient of a message, who wants others also to know about that message, forwards that message to others. Once that is done, he has to take the responsibility for having forwarded the message to others. A person, who gets a dopamine high by looking at the likes for the message forwarded by him, must also be equally prepared to face the consequence, if that message has a derogatory content"

The court also noted that since a large body was affected due to the act of the petitioner, he could not be let away just because he tendered an apology. The court added that of such a route was allowed, any person could make such statements and subsequently apologise and get away.

“However, in the instant case, it is not a dispute between two individuals and the act of the petitioner has virtually painted the entire Press and more particularly the women Reporters with vulgar comments and when such a large body is affected due to the act of the petitioner, he cannot be let away just because he tendered an apology. If such an easy route is adopted, anyone can make such statements, cause damage, subsequently apologize for his act and get away from the action taken against him,” the court noted.

Thus, the court observed that Shekher’s apology could not be acted upon and the criminal proceedings against him could not be quashed on that ground alone. With respect to Shekher’s submission that he had forwarded the messages inadvertently, the court noted that the same had to be established during the course of the tral. Thus, the court refused to quash the proceedings against Shekher and dismissed the petition. However, noting that Shekher could not be made to move from one court to another to face proceedings vas3ed on the very same cause of action, the court transferred all the criminal proceedings to the Special Court, Singaravelar Maligai.

Case Title: S. Ve. Shekher v Al. Gopalsamy and Others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 197

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.AR.Jeya Rhuthran, Mr.Venkatesh Mahadevan

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.S.Rajasekar, Mr.R.Narayanan, Mr.R.Thirumoorthy, Mr.Babu Muthu Meeran, Additional Public Prosecutor