The Madras High Court, in an order delivered by Justice G.K.Ilanthiraiyan, held that the expression “any woman” under Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) is not confined to a single named individual, but extends to an identifiable and ascertainable class or body of women. On this legal ground, the High Court dismissed two criminal original petitions filed by political commentator Dr. Ponraj seeking to quash First Information Reports (FIRs) registered against him for allegedly making derogatory remarks against women members of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam political party during an online interview.
Background of the Case
The proceedings arose from two separate complaints filed against Dr. Ponraj regarding an interview telecasted on March 18, 2026, on the “King 360” YouTube channel. According to the prosecution, the petitioner made derogatory and defamatory remarks targeting women members of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam political party by collectively referring to them as prostitutes and illiterates (“jw;Fwp”) and thanking the party leader for exposing them.
The first FIR (Crime No. 59 of 2026) was registered based on a complaint lodged by Nirmal Kumar, Member of the Legislative Assembly representing Thiruparakundram Constituency, Joint General Secretary of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam, and Minister for Energy Resources and Law, Government of Tamil Nadu. The FIR charged the petitioner under Sections 79 and 296(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The second FIR (Crime No. 194 of 2026) was registered upon a complaint by Raj Kumar, Member of the Legislative Assembly representing Cuddalore Constituency and Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Government of Tamil Nadu. This FIR invoked Sections 79 and 353(1)(c) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women (Amendment) Act, 2002, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
During the investigation, the police recorded the statement of witness Tmt. D. Geedha Banupriya under Section 180(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), wherein she stated that the petitioner’s remarks demeaned the dignity, character, and self-respect of women cadre of the party and women across Tamil Nadu.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Counsel Mr. N.R. Elango submitted that the allegations in the FIRs do not disclose any prima facie offence and that the criminal proceedings were politically motivated and initiated with mala fide intentions. He highlighted that Dr. Ponraj is a distinguished scientist, public policy advisor, former Director (Technology Interface) at the President’s Secretariat under Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, and former Senior Scientist in the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA-TEJAS) programme.
The Senior Counsel argued that the complaints selectively extracted a single word out of context from the interview. He submitted that the petitioner had sent a written explanation to the Commissioner of Police on March 27, 2026, and that the video was subsequently removed from YouTube. It was further submitted that Section 79 BNS requires an intention to insult a specific woman, whereas the petitioner had made no remarks against any particular individual.
The petitioner also relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat and another (2026) 1 SCC 721, arguing that the police registered the FIRs mechanically without conducting a preliminary inquiry under Section 173(3) BNSS, and cited S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal and another (2010) 5 SCC 600.
Counsel for the State and the de facto complainants opposed the petitions, contending that the petitioner made deliberate derogatory statements describing the women cadre of the political party as prostitutes and illiterate. They argued that the women cadre constitute an identifiable class aggrieved by the remarks and that the offences under Section 79 BNS and Section 67 IT Act were clearly attracted.
Court’s Analysis
Addressing the scope of Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the High Court observed that to attract the offence, it is sufficient if a person utters words intending to insult the modesty of a woman. The Court explicitly ruled that the expression “any woman” occurring in Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is not confined to a single named individual. It is sufficient if the words are directed at, and concern, an identifiable and ascertainable class or body of women.
The Court observed that the women cadre of the registered political party constitute such an identifiable and ascertainable class. Regarding the petitioner’s background, the Court noted that a person of scientific eminence and public standing bears a greater responsibility in public discourse to refrain from making derogatory remarks against women, and such status cannot serve as a defence to quash an FIR when cognizable offences are disclosed.
The High Court further observed that neither the written explanation submitted to the police nor the subsequent removal of the video from YouTube nullified or effaced the alleged commission of offences. Additionally, as the speech was transmitted in electronic form on YouTube, the allegations prima facie attracted Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Distinguishing the precedent in S. Khushboo, the Court noted that it was inapplicable as the present complaints were based on allegations against an identifiable class of women. Referencing the Supreme Court decision in Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra & ors. (2019) 14 SCC 350 and M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & ors. (2021) SCC Online SC 315, Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan reaffirmed that at the stage of registration of the FIR, the Court is only required to ascertain whether the allegations disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage.
Decision of the Court
The High Court held that the allegations in the FIRs prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences warranting a thorough investigation. Consequently, the Court dismissed both Criminal Original Petitions (Crl.O.P. Nos. 15258 and 15446 of 2026) and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.
The Court directed the Inspector of Police, CCB, Cyber Crime Wing, Chennai, to complete the investigation in Crime Nos. 59 and 194 of 2026 and submit the final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Case Details:
Case Title: Dr. Ponraj v. State rep by Inspector of Police, CCB, Cyber Crime Wing, Chennai and Ors.
Case No.: Crl.O.P.Nos. 15258 and 15446 of 2026
Bench: Justice G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Date: July 17, 2026
