The court also pointed out that once offensive content is shared online and viewed by the public, it harms the image and dignity of the complainant and other journalists, and a later apology cannot undo the damage.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India provide temporary relief to actor-turned-politician S. Ve Shekher by exempting him from surrendering until the next date of hearing.
The case is related to him posting a derogatory message on Facebook about women journalists, which led to his conviction by the Madras High Court.
The matter was heard by a Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, who made strong observations about Shekher’s conduct.
The Bench noted:
“First of all, you are pursuing this… it’s a nasty campaign you carried out against a woman… Attacking her dignity directly, and in such a brazen and abrupt manner…Then you don’t implead her as a party, so that if somebody can try to persuade her, or… forgive…”
The Court sharply criticized Shekher for not including the complainant in the case and for launching a campaign that hurt a woman’s dignity.
The Bench further remarked:
“You must be harassing so many women. This time, you were confronted with a Journalist Association attack.”
These comments came after Shekher argued that he did not write the original message.
He told the Court:
“The message I deleted is not the message that is existing.”
He explained that he had forwarded a message without reading it, and deleted it within an hour, followed by an apology.
However, the Court didn’t find his explanation convincing.
The judges said:
“Probably whatever your vocabulary had, you had put the entire vocabulary on Twitter…”
When Shekher insisted that he had already apologized, the judges responded strongly:
“No, no, no. You never apologized.”
“The High Court says that you never tendered, you tried to, just only a formality of apology.”
Seeking mercy from the Court, S. Ve Shekher requested relief under Section 360 of CrPC and the Probation of Offenders Act, mentioning that he is elderly, has no prior convictions, and that the message was only online for a short time.
But the Court again highlighted that the issue was serious. The Bench said Shekher had continued the legal fight even after running a harmful campaign against a woman and had not even made the complainant a party to the case.
When Shekher said that he would now include the complainant in the case, he also pointed out that the complaint was originally filed by a Journalists’ Association. He claimed to have apologized publicly by posting it in the same Facebook group where the complainant was active. He added that she had not blocked him.
To this, the Court reacted:
“Millions of people must have seen it.”
After hearing all arguments, the Court gave Shekher four weeks’ time to personally approach the complainant and persuade her to accept his unconditional apology.
The Bench made it clear:
“Implead her only when you are able to persuade her to accept your apology. We are not going to impress upon her that she should accept…”
Meanwhile, the Court exempted him from surrendering until the next date of hearing.
The Madras High Court earlier refused to interfere with Shekher’s conviction. The High Court had strongly observed:
“Mere tendering apology itself would not be sufficient.”
The court also pointed out that once offensive content is shared online and viewed by the public, it harms the image and dignity of the complainant and other journalists, and a later apology cannot undo the damage.
The High Court found it to be a fit case for conviction, and convicted Shekher under:
- Section 504 (Intentional insult to provoke breach of peace),
- Section 509 (Word, gesture or act intended to insult modesty of a woman) of the IPC,
- And Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.
Case Name: S. Ve. Shekar v. State of Tamil Nadu (SLP(Crl) No. 4548-4549/2025)
