Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan, Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has held that the expression "any woman" under Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is not restricted to a single, named complainant, and that remarks directed at an identifiable and ascertainable class of women, such as the women cadre of a political party, are sufficient to attract the offence of insulting the modesty of a woman.

The Court further held that a person of considerable scientific eminence and public standing bears a greater, not lesser, responsibility in public discourse, and cannot invoke his stature as a defence to seek quashing of an FIR where the allegations, on their face, disclose the commission of cognizable offences.

The judgment came while dismissing two connected quash petitions filed by Dr Ponraj, a former defence-aerospace scientist and public policy commentator, who sought quashing of two FIRs registered against him over remarks made about women members of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam during a YouTube interview. The Court declined to interfere at the FIR stage and directed the police to complete investigation and file the final report within twelve weeks.

A Bench of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan observed, “…The expression ‘any woman’ occurring in the provision is not confined to a single named individual. It is sufficient if the offending words are directed against or concern an identifiable and ascertainable class of women. The women cadre of the said political party constitute such an identifiable and ascertainable class, being known functionaries and volunteers of a registered political party. Therefore, prima facie, the statements allegedly made by the petitioner were directed against them”.

Senior Advocate N.R. Elango appeared for the petitioner and Arun Anbumani, Government Advocate appeared for the respondent.

The prosecution's case was that, during an interview telecast on the YouTube channel "King 360" on March 18, 2026, the petitioner allegedly described women members of TVK collectively as "prostitutes" and "illiterates", and thanked the party's leader for "exposing" them.

FIRs were registered under Sections 79 and 296(b)/353(1)(c) BNS, Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women (Amendment) Act, 2002, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, based on complaints by two sitting MLAs and Ministers of the State Government.

The petitioner contended that the FIRs were politically motivated, registered only after election results were declared, based on selectively edited portions of his interview, and that no offence was made out since no specific woman was named. Reliance was placed on Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2026) 1 SCC 721 and S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal & another (2010) 5 SCC 600, both of which the Court found distinguishable on facts.

Rejecting these contentions, the Court held that the FIR is not required to name an individual victim, since it is sufficient that the offending words concern an identifiable class of women. It further held that removal of the video subsequently did not efface the alleged offence, and that at the FIR stage, courts are only required to see whether allegations disclose a cognizable offence, not to evaluate their eventual merit. Reliance was placed on Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra and M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2021 SCC Online SC 315 on the settled principle that quashing of an FIR is an exception rather than the rule.

Both petitions were accordingly dismissed, with a direction to complete investigation within twelve weeks from receipt of the order.

Cause Title: Dr. Ponraj v. State rep. by Inspector of Police & Anr Crl.OP.Nos.15258 and 15446 of 2026

Appearances:

Petitioner: N.R. Elango, Senior Counsel, A.S. Ashwin Prasanna.

Respondents: Arun Anbumani, Government Advocate, Kripakaran M/s. M.B. Ramya, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Tags: