Madras High Court Quashes FIR Against Woman Over Social Media Comment on Video of Minor Girls

The Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, recently quashed a First Information Report (FIR) registered against a woman who was booked for commenting on a social media post showing three minor girls allegedly consuming alcohol.

The prosecution case was that the woman had posted a comment on a video shared on the social media platform ‘X’, which showed the minor girls in school uniform, criticising the manner in which the state is being governed and targeting the administration of the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam in light of the contents of the video.

Acting on a complaint lodged by a District Information Technology Coordinator and municipal councillor in Trichy district affiliated with a political party, the police registered a case in 2024 for offences under Sections 504, 505(1)(b) and 153 of the IPC (corresponding to Sections 352, 353 and 192 of the BNS respectively), Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, and Sections 74 and 77 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

According to the complaint, the defacto complainant came across the post while browsing social media. The prosecution argued that the video disclosed the identity of minor girls and that the act of sharing or commenting on such content amounted to violation of their privacy and attracted penal consequences.

Before the court, the woman contended that she had not created or uploaded the video but had merely commented on a post already shared by a third party. It was argued that the essential ingredients of the offences invoked in the FIR were not made out against her.

The bench of Justice L. Victoria Gowri examined the scope of Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which prohibits disclosure of the identity of a child involved in legal proceedings. Justice Gowri noted that the provision applies in the context of investigation, inquiry, or judicial proceedings. In the present case, the petitioner was not involved in any such process, and therefore the provision was held inapplicable

With respect to Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which penalises giving intoxicating liquor or narcotic substances to a child, court found that there was no allegation that the petitioner had supplied alcohol to the minors. Consequently, this charge was also quashed.

As regards Section 66E of the IT Act, dealing with invasion of privacy through visual media, court observed that the petitioner had not shared the video herself. She had only commented on a post shared by someone else. On this reasoning, court held that the offence under the IT Act was not attracted.

Court also examined the IPC offences. It found that there was no material to show that any public alarm or disturbance had been caused. No member of the public, apart from the defacto complainant, had lodged a complaint. On that basis, court held that the offences under Sections 504, 505(1)(b) and 153 IPC were not made out.

The judge also recorded that the complainant belonged to one political party, while the petitioner appeared to be a supporter of another, and remarked that the complaint seemed to have been lodged with political vindication.

Accordingly, court quashed the impugned FIR. 

Case Title: Sowdhamani vs. The Inspector of Police, CCD-III, District Police Station Trichy. and Anothers

Order  Date: January 19, 2026

Bench: Justice L. Victoria Gowri