"It’s A Nasty Campaign You Carried Out Against A Woman": Supreme Court Slams S. Ve Shekar For Derogatory Comments Against Woman Journalist

A Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh remarked, “ 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 added, “You must be harassing so many women. This time, you were confronted with a Journalist Association attack.”

At the outset, Shekar stated that, “The message I deleted is not the message that is existing.” He told the Bench that he had forwarded a message without reading it, deleted it within an hour, and apologized.

The Court said, “Probably whatever your vocabulary had, you had put the entire vocabulary on Twitter...”.

However, when Shekar maintained that he had apologized, the Bench responded, “No, no, no. You never apologized,” adding that, “The High Court says that you never tendered, you tried to, just only a formality of apology.”

Seeking relief, Shekar asked the Court to consider leniency under Section 360 CrPC or the Probation of Offenders Act, citing his age, absence of prior convictions, and the fact that the message was online only briefly.

The Court responded by saying that Shekhar was pursuing the matter after having carried out a nasty campaign against a woman, attacking her dignity in a brazen and abrupt manner, and further noted that the complainant had not been impleaded as a party.

Shekar said he would implead the complainant but noted the complaint was brought by the Journalists’ Association.

On the claim of public apology, Shekher said he had posted it in the same Facebook group the complainant was in and that she had not blocked him. The Court observed, “Millions of people must have seen it.”

The Bench passed an order affording Shekar four weeks’ time to approach the complainant and persuade her to accept his unconditional apology, making 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…”

The Court also exempted him from surrendering until the next date of hearing.

The Madras High Court had declined to interfere with Shekar’s conviction. The High Court had observed, “Mere tendering apology itself would not be sufficient." The Court noted that once such content is released and seen by various persons, the image of the complainant and other journalists would be degraded, and subsequent apologies would not remove the public perception. Therefore, it was deemed a fit case for conviction

Shekar had been convicted under Sections 504 and 509 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, for posting derogatory comments on Facebook.