Madras High Court refused to quash two FIRs against scientist and political commentator Ponraj, holding that educational qualifications and public stature cannot justify derogatory remarks against women. The Court said individuals with public influence bear greater responsibility in public discourse.
Chennai: The Madras High Court that scientific eminence, educational qualifications or public accomplishments furnish no defence in a criminal case concerning derogatory remarks made against women, ruling that those occupying a position of standing in society are expected to exercise greater restraint in public discourse rather than less.
Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan made the observation while declining to quash two first information reports registered against scientist and political commentator Dr. Ponraj over remarks he allegedly made concerning women members of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK).
Rejecting the invocation of the petitioner’s standing as a ground for quashing, the Court held that a person possessing scientific eminence, educational qualifications and public accomplishments carries a heightened responsibility in public discourse and is expected to refrain from demeaning remarks against women.
The Court said, “Such status, cannot be pleaded as a defence to seek quashing where the allegations on their face disclose cognizable offences.”
The Court said,
“A person possessing scientific eminence, educational qualifications and public accomplishments bears a greater responsibility in public discourse and is expected to refrain from making derogatory or demeaning remarks against women. Such status cannot be pleaded as a defence to seek quashing of the FIR when the allegations, on their face, disclose the commission of cognizable offences,”
The complaints arise from an interview telecast on a YouTube channel on March 18. Ponraj is alleged to have described women members of the TVK using terms including a sexually derogatory epithet and “illiterates,” and to have thanked the party’s leader for having exposed them.
The FIRs invoke Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which penalises words, gestures or acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman, alongside Section 353(1)(c) of the BNS, which deals with statements conducing to public mischief. Also invoked are Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, relating to the publication or transmission of obscene material in electronic form, and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998.
Ponraj submitted that he is not a politician but a political commentator and a public voice on the State’s politics. He placed reliance on his career as a scientist and on his association with former President Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam.
His principal contentions were that the complaints were politically motivated, and that a single expression had been lifted from the interview and read in isolation, divorced from the context in which it was uttered. He further pointed out that the video had since been taken down from the platform.
The Court was unpersuaded by the last of these submissions, holding that the subsequent removal of the video neither erases nor nullifies the offences alleged to have been committed.
The most consequential part of the ruling concerns the reach of Section 79 of the BNS. The Court held that the provision is not confined in its operation to remarks directed at a woman identified by name.
The Court said,
“The expression ‘any woman’ occurring in the provision is not confined to a single named individual,”
It went on to hold that the section can be attracted where the offending remarks concern an identifiable and ascertainable class of women, and found that women functionaries and volunteers of a registered political party constitute precisely such a class.
The practical significance of this reading is considerable: it forecloses the argument, frequently advanced in cases involving public speech, that no offence is made out because no particular woman was named.
The Court further held that Section 67 of the Information Technology Act was prima facie attracted, the speech having been transmitted electronically and having allegedly denigrated the collective dignity and character of the women concerned.
Dismissing both quashing petitions, the Court directed the police to complete the investigation and place their final reports before the jurisdictional magistrate within twelve weeks. The allegations remain to be tested at trial, and no finding of guilt has been recorded.
Case Title: Dr Ponraj v. State