Be mindful of reach before posting on social media: Supreme Court

New Delhi Users of social media must remain mindful of its impact and reach, the Supreme Court stressed on Friday, offering no relief to actor, playwright and former legislator S Ve Shekher, who wanted to be let off in cases registered against him for sharing a derogatory Facebook post against women journalists in April 2018.

The Supreme Court refuses to offer relief to playwright, former AIADMK MLA S Ve Shekhar in cases filed against him for sharing derogatory posts against women journalists in April 2018. (ANI)

Read here: Can’t restrain Bihar from releasing caste census data: Supreme Court

Shekhar claimed before a bench, led by justice Bhushan R Gavai, that he had put eye drops on the date of the incident, leading to his “mistake” of sharing the offensive posts against women journalists without reading it or realising its content.

“If he had allegedly put eye drops, he should have been more careful about what he was doing. It is not essential to use social media. Who forces you? But if one uses social media, then he should be more careful about its impact and reach,” the bench, which also comprised justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, told senior advocate S Nagamuthu, who appeared for Shekher.

Nagamuthu submitted that Shekher is 73 years old and has already tendered his apology before the Tamil Nadu high court. “Should at this age he goes to jail after he has expressed regret and apologised? He respects women and women journalists. It happened because of the eye drops. He never did anything like this before and it was one time thing that happened by mistake,” argued the senior counsel, requesting the court to take a sympathetic view.

But the court pointed out that Shekher has a huge fan following on Facebook and across all social media platforms, requiring him to be careful about the consequences of his action.

“You have such a huge fan following…Why do you take a chance of forwarding anything without reading it? If you find social media essential, then you face the consequences too. We cannot give special treatment to someone just because he can approach the Supreme Court,” the bench told Nagamuthu.

Rejecting Shekher’s appeal against the July order of the Madras high court, it said that the former AIADMK MLA, who later joined BJP, should enter the dock and put up arguments in his defence during the course of the proceedings before the trial court.

On a request made by Shekher to allow his appearance before four different trial courts through videoconferencing, the bench said that such a request needs to be made before the trial court concerned.

Shekher had in April 2018 shared an alleged derogatory post targeting women journalists, which was in response to a woman journalist’s complaint against the then Tamil Nadu governor Banwarilal Purohit of patting her cheek during a press meet.

By its order on July 14, the Madras high court refused to quash the criminal cases filed against Shekher in the courts of Chennai, Karur and Tirunelveli districts by the journalist association in 2018, noting that the message forwarded by him contained indecent and vitriolic attack on a particular woman and other women press reporters.

“Hence, prima facie, the offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 is also cases made out. It is true that the petitioner removed the derogatory message from his Facebook account even on the same day and he also apologised for having forwarded the message. These acts, by themselves, do not help the petitioner from facing the consequences for forwarding a derogatory message. An offence has already been committed and the petitioner cannot now escape from the offence by merely coming up with an apology statement subsequently,” said the high court.

Read here: Investigate if murders of 4 rationalists linked: Supreme Court to CBI

Shekhar’s act virtually painted the entire press and more particularly women reporters with vulgar comments, and when such a large body is affected due to his act, Shekher cannot be let away just because he tendered an apology, the high court added.