Ponraj moves Madras High Court seeking to quash FIR against him

V. Ponraj (60), a governmental commentator, has approached the Madras High Court urging it to quash a First Information Report (FIR) registered against him connected the ground of a ailment lodged by Minister for Energy Resources and Law R. Nirmalkumar accusing him of having made derogatory remarks against women followers of the ruling Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK).

Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, connected Tuesday (June 16, 2026), adjourned the proceeding connected the quash plea to Wednesday (June 17). In his plea, the petitioner told the tribunal Mr. Nirmalkumar had lodged the ailment against him overmuch earlier helium assumed bureau arsenic a Minister. The ailment was initially lodged with the Chief Electoral Officer of Tamil Nadu connected March 26.

According to the complaint, lodged successful his capableness arsenic the associated wide caput of TVK, Mr. Nirmalkumar had travel crossed connected March 18 an YouTube interrogation fixed by Mr. Ponraj and recovered it to beryllium highly derogatory against women successful general. The cyber transgression helping of Chennai Central Crime Branch constabulary registered the FIR, connected the ground of the complaint, lone connected May 12.

The FIR was booked for offences nether Sections 79 (uttering words intended astatine insulting the modesty of a woman) and 296b (uttering obscene words) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 67 (publishing oregon transmitting obscene worldly successful physics form) of the Information Technology Act of 2000. It was registered against the petitioner and the YouTube channel.

Claiming the YouTube video acrophobic was deleted overmuch earlier the registration of the FIR, the petitioner claimed, it was “a wide lawsuit of misuse of governmental powerfulness arsenic a instrumentality of governmental vendetta and that the de-facto complainant had orchestrated this ailment to soundlessness morganatic governmental criticism, which is protected arsenic escaped code nether Article l9(1)(a) of the Constitution.”

The petition further read: “The FIR is an result of an online interrogation and the petitioner was lone answering the questions which were posed to him and the telecast (publishing) was done by a backstage YouTube channel. Hence the FIR is liable to beryllium quashed... With the materials disposable connected grounds and connected speechmaking the FIR, it would beryllium an maltreatment of process of tribunal to proceed against the petitioner for the alleged offences.”