"One Wife Free" Remark Not Misogynistic: Madras HC Quashes Proceedings Against Rajya Sabha MP C. Ve Shanmugan

On merits, the Court examined the speech and concluded that it could not, “by any stretch of imagination”, be construed as misogynistic. Instead, the remark was interpreted as a rhetorical critique of the government’s freebie policy. The Court held that the statement did not equate women with commodities nor amount to demoralising the women community of the State.

Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira observed, “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”.

Advocate M. Mohamed Riyaz appeared for the petitioner and David Sundar Singh, Standing Counsel appeared for the respondent.

In the matter, the complaint, was lodged by office-bearers of the All-India Democratic Women’s Association, alleging that the statement was derogatory and demoralised women by portraying them as commodities.

Acting on the complaint, the Commission issued summons and subsequently recommended initiation of criminal prosecution under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998. It had also suggested that the prosecution report be circulated to the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.

However, the Court, allowing the criminal writ petition held that the Commission’s proceedings suffered from serious procedural infirmities. The Court noted that both the summons and the recommendation were signed only by the Chairperson and were not authenticated by the Member Secretary as mandated under Section 9(3) of the Act.

Furthermore, that the Commission is a multi-member statutory body, the Court ruled that decisions cannot be taken unilaterally. The Bench also observed that there was no material to show that a proper investigation had been conducted before forming a prima facie opinion, as required under Section 7(3) of the Act. A mere recital in the recommendation that a prima facie case existed was held insufficient.

The Bench also disapproved of the Commission’s refusal to furnish a copy of the complaint to the petitioner and its rejection of the vakalatnama filed through counsel, observing that such actions lacked statutory backing and violated principles of fairness.

Therefore, reiterating that when a statute prescribes a particular manner of doing an act, it must be done in that manner alone, the Court quashed the proceedings and the recommendation dated 11-11-2025, allowing the writ petition without costs.

Cause Title: C. Ve. Shanmugam v. The Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women & Ors. W.P. (Crl.) No. 1418 of 202

Appearances:

Petitioner: M. Mohamed Riyaz, Advocate.

Respondent: David Sundar Singh, Standing Counsel, K.M.D. Muhilan, Additional Public Prosecutor, K.C. Karl Marx, Advocates.