Supreme Court Criticizes Tamil Actor-Politician For Derogatory Post Against Journalist
The Supreme Court delivered a sharp rebuke to Tamil actor and politician SV Shekher on Friday regarding his sharing of derogatory content about a female journalist, describing it as a "nasty campaign" that directly assaulted her dignity.
Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, while allowing Shekher temporary exemption from surrender pending further hearings, questioned his motives and highlighted his failure to offer a sincere apology.
"We are surprised you are pursuing this. It was a nasty campaign against a woman. You attacked her dignity directly, in such a brazen and abrupt manner," the bench stated firmly.
The justices also expressed suspicion that Shekher might have harassed other women previously but faced consequences this time because a journalist association confronted him.
Shekher's legal representative, Advocate Balaji Srinivasan, claimed his client forwarded the message without reading it and removed it within an hour. The counsel requested four weeks to approach the complainant with an unconditional apology, which the court granted while exempting Shekher from surrender until the next hearing.
The case originated in 2018 when Shekher shared content with allegedly offensive remarks about a female journalist, prompting widespread condemnation and a complaint from a journalist association. Authorities filed charges against him under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.
A special court convicted Shekher in February 2023, sentencing him to one month's imprisonment plus a fine. Though he appealed, the Madras High Court upheld the conviction in January 2024, while suspending the sentence for 90 days to allow his Supreme Court appeal.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
The battle today is not for the abstract ideals of Constitution — it is for democracy itself
Written by Anmol Jain 'Samvidhan khatre mein hai' has been the rallying cry of Congress since the beginning of its campaign for the 2024 general elections. After the polls, the party doubled down on this narrative, directing its state units to conduct Samvidhan Bachao rallies across the country. Several such rallies were organised in April and May in many states, including Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. On June 8, the Yatra began in Goa. Over the past year, Congress has left no occasion to assert that our Constitution is under threat. But a deeper, more pressing question must be asked, not just by the Opposition, but by every citizen: If the Constitution is in danger, what exactly needs to be rescued, safeguarded, and nourished? The complexity of the question demands that we ascribe an identity to the Constitution. And this identity is connected to another core idea of the Republic: Democracy. From the abuse of constitutional offices like that of the Governor — as the Supreme Court emphasised in the Tamil Nadu Governor case — to the trampling of rights, threats to the foundational essence of democracy are real. Notably, it is often rooted in constitutional structures and silences. For instance, the Constitution does not explicitly ask the Governor or the Speaker to shed all partisan loyalties in their functioning. However, our demand that they rise above party lines stems from the democratic values the Constitution is meant to embody. The Constitution, in this sense, becomes an accessible language through which we reassert and reinforce democratic values in public discourse. However, this language is gradually losing its resonance. When the essence of constitutional arrangements is repeatedly subverted for short-term political gain, non-constitutional justifications begin to suffice. And when courts do intervene, often the independent institutions are blamed, but not the style of governance. So, the political and intellectual struggle today cannot be framed merely as a defence of the Constitution. It must go deeper and become a struggle to resurface, reiterate, and reassert the 'identity' of the Constitution and the democratic values it is meant to uphold. And to do so, we must shift the pivot of the discourse from 'Constitution' to 'Democracy'. There are two long-term dangers to the overreliance on the Constitution as the central narrative. The first is political. If those raising the slogan today come to power, they would find it difficult to pursue the structural changes necessary for democratic repair. Any attempt to redesign constitutional structures and institutions, however justified, would risk the charge of hypocrisy. Having opposed constitutional change while in opposition, they would be accused of undermining it once in office. They might also face the slogan 'Samvidhan khatre mein hai.' The second is intellectual. An overemphasis on the Constitution risks stifling critical engagement with it. After all, constitutional provisions were used to enable the imposition of Emergency, legitimise central executive dominance, and allow repeated rights violations. In light of what the country has experienced over the past 75 years, a critical, reflective engagement with the Constitution is not only desirable, it is essential. But such a critique becomes difficult when the Constitution is treated as a flawless relic that must be defended at all cost. Any discourse rooted in democracy is politically sharper. It is far harder for incumbents to deflect an opposition narrative grounded in loktantra. The government is, no doubt, elected constitutionally and acts largely within formal constitutional bounds. But that is precisely the issue: Constitutional form is being used to mask democratic erosion. The Constitution remains intact, but democracy appears to be backsliding. This distinction is crucial. The battle today is not for the Constitution in the abstract. It is for democracy itself. The writer teaches law Jindal Global Law School. He was the 2023-24 Fox International Fellow at Yale University and Melbourne Law School
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
SC bail to man booked for inter-faith marriage
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has granted bail to a man who was booked by the Uttarakhand Police under the anti-conversion law for marrying a woman of another faith. In February this year, the Uttarakhand High Court had refused to enlarge the accused Aman Siddiqui alias Aman Chaudhary on bail, prompting him to file an appeal before the top court. An FIR was lodged with Rudrapur Police Station of Udham Singh Nagar district against the appellant under the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018 and Sections 318(4) and 319 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sahita, 2023. The appellant's counsel contended that a frivolous complaint was lodged since the accused married a woman who follows a different faith. Further, it was submitted that the marriage between the parties was an arranged marriage, and the families of both sides voluntarily decided to arrange the marriage of the appellant with the woman. The FIR was registered soon after certain persons and organisations objected to the inter-faith marriage. Although the police filed a charge sheet against the appellant, he remained in jail for nearly six months. In its judgement, the apex court observed that the respondent state government cannot have any objection to the appellant and his wife residing together inasmuch as they have been married as per the wishes of their respective parents and families. It clarified that the pendency of the criminal proceeding against the appellant would not come in the way of him and his wife residing together on their own volition. 'In the circumstances, we find that this is an appropriate case where the relief of bail ought to be granted to the appellant herein,' a bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chand Sharma ordered. Allowing the appeal, the Justice Nagarathna-led Bench ordered the appellant to be produced before the trial court concerned as early as possible, which will release him on bail, subject to such conditions as the trial court may deem appropriate to impose to ensure his presence in the criminal case. It also directed the appellant to extend 'complete cooperation' in the ensuing trial and not to misuse his liberty. 'Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation of bail granted to the appellant,' the top court cautioned.
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
Bengal govt moves Supreme Court seeking revision of order concerning pending DA
Kolkata: The West Bengal government has approached the Supreme Court seeking revision of the earlier order related to the clearing of pending dearness allowance. State secretariat sources said in the petition at the Apex Court, the state government had also sought certain clarifications on certain points of the order that was delivered last month. However, the sources added, while moving the petition, the state government is carrying out the preparatory process for paying 25 per cent of the pending dearness allowance dues within the stipulated date. "However, the Supreme Court is on vacation now. Therefore, even though the petition has been filed, it may not be listed for hearing until the vacation period is over. So the state government has kept the preparatory process on for paying the 25 per cent of the pending dearness allowances dues within the Supreme Court stipulated deadline, to avoid any possibility of contempt of court," said a senior official of the state government who did not wish to be named. The immediate payment of 25 per cent of the pending dearness allowance dues will result in an immediate drain-out of over Rs 10,000 crore from the state exchequer, as per calculations of the state Finance Department. Currently, government employees in Bengal receive dearness allowances at a rate of just 18 per cent, as against 55 per cent received by their counterparts in the Centre and many other state governments. The state Finance Department employees also apprehend that this drain-out might also impact some monthly payments under different welfare schemes run by the state government. Last month, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee indirectly blamed the Union government for the DA crisis. She claimed that since the Union government had frozen payments under various centrally-sponsored schemes to the state government, the latter had to continue those projects with its own money, as a result of which there was constant pressure on the state exchequer.
