Madras High Court refuses to quash FIR registered against political commentator Ponraj

V. Ponraj. File | Photo credit: B. Velankanni Raj

The Madras High Court on Friday (July 17, 2026) refused to quash a First Information Report (FIR) registered against political commentator V Ponraj, 60, for making derogatory remarks against supporters of the ruling Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party in a YouTube interview.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan dismissed a petition filed by a political commentator to quash an FIR registered on a complaint filed by Minister for Energy Resources and Law R. Nirmalkumar before he took over as minister and during the election campaign.

The complaint was initially filed with the Chief Electoral Officer of Tamil Nadu on 26 March. According to the complaint, filed in his capacity as joint general secretary of TVK, Mr. Nirmalkumar came across a YouTube interview given by Mr. Ponraj on March 18 and found it highly defamatory.

Subsequently, the Chennai Central Crime Branch registered an FIR on May 12 for offenses under sections 79 (uttering words tending to insult the modesty of a woman) and 296b (uttering obscene words) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and section 67 (publication or transmission of electronic obscene material)200

An FIR has been registered against the petitioner as well as the YouTube channel. Claiming that the YouTube video in question was deleted before the FIR was registered, however, the petitioner said it was a “clear case of abuse of political power as an instrument of political revenge and that de facto the complainant orchestrated this complaint to silence legitimate political criticism which is protected as freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.”

Mr. Ponraj further said, “The FIR is the result of an online interview and the petitioner was only answering the questions put to him and the broadcast (publication) was done by a private YouTube channel. Hence, the FIR can be quashed… With the materials available on record and after reading the FIR, it would be an abuse of court process to prosecute the petitioner for the alleged offence.”

Published – 17 Jul 2026 12:18 IST