CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Tuesday wondered whether actor and BJP leader S Ve Shekher was illiterate to forward derogatory posts against women journos without reading them. The court made the observations while issuing an interim stay to the framing of charges against Shekher in the case pending before a trial court.
The issue pertains to a derogatory post shared by Shekher in April 2018 in the wake of the controversy over Tamil Nadu governor Banwarilal Purohit patting a woman journalist on the cheek without her consent when she was asking him a question at a press conference venue. The trial in the case is pending in the Special Court for MP/MLAs.
According to Shekher, apart from the present criminal proceeding, there were three other private complaints filed against him for the same offence. “All the three private complaints have been stayed by the high court in separate proceedings. Only in the present proceeding the prosecution has filed a final report before the jurisdictional court,” he added.
According to the additional public prosecutor, Kritika submitted that even forwarding the post amounted to endorsing the opinion of the message. She opposed the petitioner’s plea to quash the criminal proceeding.
During the hearing on Tuesday, Justice N Sathish Kumar asked whether the accused was illiterate to forward such posts without reading them. The court observed this in response to Shekher's statement that he had unintentionally forwarded the post of his friend on social media without reading the content.
“Forwarding is also an offence. Tendering an apology may help you during the trial. But can the prosecution be quashed because you have tendered an apology?” queried Justice Sathish Kumar.
The counsel for the petitioner Venkatesh Mahadevan, however, argued that the post was removed within two hours and a public apology was also tendered by the petitioner.
The court directed the prosecutor to file a detailed report on the plea. The court granted an interim stay on framing of charges and also dispensed with the personal appearance of the accused before the trial court during the hearings. The case was adjourned to April 16 for the next hearing.