In a significant ruling on free speech and criminal liability on social media, the Madras High Court set aside an FIR registered against a woman who had merely commented on a viral video involving minor girls.
Justice L. Victoria Gowri of the Madurai Bench held that the petitioner could not be prosecuted for offences under the Indian Penal Code, the Information Technology Act, or the Juvenile Justice Act simply for posting a comment on content shared by someone else.
Read also:- Bombay High Court Allows Single Mother to Change Daughter’s Name, Caste in School Records
Background of the Case
The case arose from Crime No.12 of 2024 registered by the CCD-III District Police Station in Trichy. The petitioner, Sowdhamani, had approached the High Court seeking to quash the FIR filed against her.
According to the complaint, a video circulating on social media showed three minor girls in school uniforms allegedly holding liquor bottles and consuming alcohol. The video displayed their faces clearly. The de facto complainant, a District Information Technology Coordinator and Municipal Councillor affiliated with a political party, claimed that the petitioner had commented on the shared video in a manner critical of the ruling party’s administration.
Following the complaint, police registered offences under Sections 504 (intentional insult), 505(1)(b) (statements causing public alarm), and 153 (provocation) of the IPC, Section 66E of the Information Technology Act (violation of privacy), and Sections 74 and 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that she had only commented on a post and had not uploaded or shared the video herself.
Read also:- Rajasthan High Court Refuses Relief to New Nursing Colleges, Says Counselling Cannot Be Reopened
Court’s Observations
Justice Gowri carefully examined the legal provisions invoked by the police.
On Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act - which prohibits disclosure of a child’s identity in legal proceedings - the Court observed that the petitioner was not involved in any investigation, inquiry, or judicial process concerning the minors. “The petitioner has nothing to do with any inquiry or investigation or judicial procedure,” the Court noted.
Addressing Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which deals with giving intoxicating substances to children, the Court found that there was no allegation that the petitioner supplied liquor or narcotics to the minors. The provision, therefore, could not apply to her.
With respect to Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, which concerns invasion of privacy through visual media, the Court made a clear distinction. The petitioner had not uploaded the video; she had only commented on a post already shared by a third party. “It is not the petitioner who had shared the video of the minor children,” the Court observed.
Read also:- Jharkhand HC Seeks Answers on 437 Custodial Deaths, Orders Home Secretary to Clarify Judicial
Turning to the IPC charges, the judge found no material to suggest that the petitioner’s comment had caused public disorder or alarm. The Court also took note that no member of the public had filed a complaint, except the de facto complainant, who belonged to a political party.
The bench remarked that the complaint appeared to stem from political differences. The judge observed that the complainant seemed to have acted with “political vindication” against the petitioner, who was perceived to support another political party.
Read also:- Karnataka High Court Cuts Jail Term in ATM Cloning Case, Enhances Fine to ₹2 Lakh Each
The Decision
After reviewing the materials on record, the Court concluded that none of the offences alleged against the petitioner were made out.
“The offences under the Juvenile Justice Act are hereby quashed,” the Court stated. It further held that the charge under Section 66E of the Information Technology Act would also not stand.
Finding that the essential ingredients of Sections 504, 505(1)(b), and 153 of the IPC were absent, the Court ruled that the FIR could not be sustained.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the FIR in Crime No.12 of 2024 and allowed the Criminal Original Petition. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.
Case Title: Sowdhamani vs The Inspector of Police & Anr
Case No.: CRL OP (MD) No.13858 of 2024
Decision Date: 19 January 2026
