V. Ponraj. File
| Photo Credit: B. Velankanni Raj
The Madras High Court, on Friday (July 17, 2026), refused to quash two First Information Reports (FIRs) registered against political commentator V. Ponraj (60), for having made “derogatory” remarks against women followers of the ruling Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party in an YouTube interview.
Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan dismissed a couple of petitions filed by the political commentator to quash the two FIRs, including the one booked on the basis of a complaint lodged by Minister for Energy Resources and Law R. Nirmalkumar before he assumed charge as a Minister and during the course of election campaign.
“The petitioner, being a person of considerable standing in society, ought to have exercised greater restraint while making public statements. A person possessing scientific eminence, educational qualifications and public accomplishments bears a greater responsibility in public discourse and is expected to refrain from making derogatory or demeaning remarks against women. Such status cannot be pleaded as a defence to seek quashing of the FIR when the allegations, on their face, disclose the commission of cognizable offences,” the judge wrote.
The judge also said, the deletion of the video interview from the YouTube channel would not efface or nulllify the alleged commission of the offences and hence the court was not inclined to quash the FIRs.
Mr. Nirmalkumar had initially lodged the complaint with the Chief Electoral Officer on March 26 and then it had been referred to the police. According to the complainant, serving as joint general secretary of TVK, he had come across the YouTube interview on March 18 and found it to be highly derogatory.
Therefore, the Chennai Central Crime Branch police had registered a FIR on May 12 for offences under Sections 79 (uttering words intended at insulting the modesty of a woman) and 296b (uttering obscene words) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 67 (publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form) of the Information Technology Act of 2000.
The FIR was booked against the petitioner as well as the YouTube channel. However, claiming that the YouTube video concerned was deleted much before the registration of the FIR, the petitioner said, it was “a clear case of misuse of political power as a tool of political vendetta and that the de-facto complainant had orchestrated this complaint to silence legitimate political criticism, which is protected as free speech under Article l9(1)(a) of the Constitution.”
Mr. Ponraj further said: “The FIR is an outcome of an online interview and the petitioner was only answering the questions which were posed to him and the telecast (publishing) was done by a private YouTube channel… With the materials available on record and on reading the FIR, it would be an abuse of process of court to proceed against the petitioner for the alleged offences.”
Published – July 17, 2026 12:18 pm IST
