CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has quashed the proceedings of the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women against former AIADMK minister and sitting MP C Ve Shanmugam over his alleged derogatory comments against women while addressing a party meet.
The TNSCW, on October 24, 2025, issued a summons to Shanmugam requiring him to be present before it on October 28 for inquiry relating to the complaints lodged by G Pramila and A Radhika, leaders of the All India Democratic Women’s Association, over his comments equating women with commodities while addressing a party meet. It also directed the DGP to initiate criminal proceedings against the AIADMK leader.
“Having gone through the petitioner’s (Shanmugam) 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,” Justice AD Jagadish Chandira said in the order passed on Wednesday on the petition filed by Shanmugam.
He added that just because of the fact that the petitioner had stated that, along with other commodities, the Government may even announce one wife free to each citizen, it can in no way be inferred or understood that he has equated women with commodities.
Concurring with the submissions made by the petitioner’s counsel A Mohamed Riyaz over the procedural violations in issuing summons, the judge rapped the commission for flouting the procedures as contemplated in the TN State Commission for Women’s Act, 2008.
On the commission’s submission that it keeps confidential the complaints relating to women’s rights and sexual offences for not furnishing copy of the complaint along with the summons, the judge said, “This stance and reason therefor do not cut ice with this Court for the simple reason that only if the allegations levelled against the petitioner are made known to him, can he put forth his defence.”
Further, the case in hand is not one arising from the POCSO Act, he said, and noted, in fact, the names and addresses of the complainants and their contact numbers have been stated in the summons itself. Having divulged the identity of the complainants, the commission, in other words, “cannot blow both hot and cold,” the judge said.