2026:MHC:809W.P. (Crl.) No. 1418 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON: 12.02.2026

DELIVERED ON: 25.02.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA

W.P.(Crl.)No.1418 of 2025 & W.P.M.P.(Crl.)Nos.689 to 691 of 2025

C.Ve. Shanmugam Petitioner

vs.

1. The Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women

represented by its Chairperson

Kalasa Mahal

Chepauk

Chennai

Tamil Nadu 600 005

2. The Director General of Police

Police Headquarters

Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai

Mylapore

Chennai 600 004

3. Ms. G. Pramila

4. Ms. A. Radhika Respondents

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records

pertaining to the proceedings in Case No.5279 of 2025 on the file of

the first respondent, intimated to the petitioner vide summons dated

24.10.2025 and quash the proceedings in Case No.5279 of 2025,

including any recommendation order dated 11.11.2025 issued

therein and forbear the second respondent from proceeding with the

recommendations of the first respondent.

1/18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P. (Crl.) No. 1418 of 2025

For petitionerMr. M. Mohamed Riyaz

For R1 Mr. David Sundar Singh

Standing Counsel

For R2 Mr.K.M.D. Muhilan

Additional Public Prosecutor

For RR 3 & 4 Mr. K.C. Karl Marx

ORDER

The prayer in this writ petition has two limbs. Vide the first

limb, the proceedings in Case No.5279 of 2025 on the file of the first

respondent Commission initiated pursuant to the complaint made by

the respondents 3 and 4 and the recommendation dated 11.11.2025

made by the first respondent Commission to the second respondent

(Director General of Police) to initiate criminal prosecution against

the petitioner under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023 and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of

Women Act, 1998, are sought to be quashed. Vide the second limb,

a mandamus is sought to forbear the second respondent from

proceeding with the aforesaid recommendation made by the first

respondent Commission.

2.Facts leading to the filing of this writ petition could be

summarised thus:

2/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P. (Crl.) No. 1418 of 2025

2.1. On a complaint dated 14.10.2025 given by the

respondents 3 and 4 (private respondents) stating that the

petitioner, in one of his speeches for his party cadres, has

stated that the present Government may even announce

one wife free to each citizen, the first respondent

Commission issued summons dated 24.10.2025 to the

petitioner to appear before the first respondent Commission

on 28.10.2025 at 12.00 noon, which was served on the

petitioner on 27.10.2025.

2.2. Unable to appear before the first respondent

Commission at short notice, the petitioner authorised his

counsel who filed vakalatnama and a memo which were

concededly refused to be received by the first respondent

Commission.

2.3. Thereafter, the petitioner addressed a letter

dated 05.11.2025 to the first respondent Commission, inter

alia, recounting non-supply of complaint copy along with the

summons and also video of alleged statement made by him

which was the basis for the complaint, refusal of the first

respondent Commission to receive memo and vakalatnama

and his willingness to respond to the allegations made

against him.

3/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P. (Crl.) No. 1418 of 2025

2.4. While so, the first respondent Commission, vide

a communication dated 11.11.2025 addressed to the second

respondent, closed the complaint by recommending for

initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner

under the relevant provisions of the BNS and TNPHW Act.

The said communication further stated that the report of the

prosecution may be circulated to the Hon'ble Chairman,

Rajya Sabha and the matter may be reported back to the

first respondent Commission.

2.5. Challenging the proceedings initiated by the

first respondent Commission and also the communication

dated 11.11.2025 of the first respondent Commission

addressed to the second respondent, this writ petition

(criminal) has been filed, as has already been delineated in

the opening paragraph.

3.Mr. Mohamed Riyaz, learned counsel for the petitioner,

advanced the following submissions:

3.1. The summons dated 24.10.2025 has been

issued by the first respondent unilaterally without the

concurrence of other Members of the Commission and also

4/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P. (Crl.) No. 1418 of 2025

without the authentication by the Member Secretary of the

Commission, which is against the provisions of the TNSCW

Act;

3.2 The summons dated 24.10.2025 was not

accompanied by a copy of the complaint, thereby denying

the petitioner an opportunity to put forth his defence, much

less effective defence; and

3.3. The alleged speech made by the petitioner was

in a meeting of his party cadres and it was not a public

speech; even if the averments in the complaint are taken at

their face value, no offence can be made out necessitating

initiation of criminal action against the petitioner.

4.By inviting the attention of this Court to Section 7(1)(a)

of the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women Act, 2008 (for

brevity “the TNSCW Act”), Mr. Riyaz submitted that as per the said

provision, the first respondent Commission ought to have conducted

an investigation which has not been done in this case.

5.Further, with reference to paragraph 3.1, supra, he

submitted that as per Section 9(3) of the TNSCW Act, all orders and

decisions of the Commission shall be authenticated by the Member

5/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P. (Crl.) No. 1418 of 2025

Secretary or any other officer of the Commission duly authorised by

the Member Secretary in this behalf, but, in this case, this provision

has, completely and conveniently, been given a go-by.

6.To buttress his submissions at paragraph 4 and 5, supra,

the attention of this Court was invited to a decision of a Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in Mary Rajasekaran vs. University of

Madras and others [2021 SCC OnLine Mad 4944] , the relevant

portion of which is reproduced below:

“49. Section 7 makes it very clear that functions of the commission

under Section 7 of the Act is subject to the performance of the functions of the

National Commission for Women under Section 10 of the National Commission

for Women Act, 1990. Sub-Clause 2 indicate that the Commission is having all

the powers of a civil court. Sub-Clause 3 indicates that if the Commission

satisfies after thorough investigation and there is a prima facie case may refer

the matter to the authority for appropriate action as per law. Sub-Section 4

deals with recommendations that may be made by the commission.

50. The primary function of the Commission is to find out the prima

facie case after thorough investigation. Investigation cannot be merely on the

basis of submissions of the complaint alone. Only after proper discovery of facts

on evidence and records etc., Whereas in this case, the Chairperson alone

visited, there is no evidence that the other members have accompanied and

they have participated. The Chairperson on the same day, just accepted the

case of the complainant and gave direction. Such direction to comply the order

of the Commission is contrary to Sub-Clause 3 of Section 7. The power of the

Commission is only to refer the matter to the concerned authority including the

police to take appropriate action as per law, if any prima facie case is made out.

Otherwise, the powers of the Commissioner is only in the nature of

recommendations. Commission cannot direct the implementation of the orders

to implement the orders passed by it.

53. At any event, the very conduct of the procedure by the Chairperson

alone without the body of members constituted as Commission itself against

the provision of the Act. Besides as indicated above Sub-Claue 3 of 7 of the

Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women Act, 2008 makes it clear that the

Commission can only recommend to the appropriate authority or police when

the prima facie case is made out for appropriate action. Such being the position,

the Order directing the College to pay huge compensation certainly liable to be

interfered and not maintainable and such order is definitely against the very

statue under which the Commission was constituted. Therefore, the Order of

the Women Commission is necessarily to be set aside. Despite the Regulations

under the Central Act for entertaining the complaint when same is already

ceased by the Court of law. The Commission ought not have entertained the

complaint independently and passed such order. The manner in which the

findings have been recorded is also not based on proper evidence. At any event,

6/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P. (Crl.) No. 1418 of 2025

the very Order is against the Statue. In such view of the matter Order dated

23.12.2020 passed by the 1st Respondent in W.P. No. 1298 of 2021 is set aside.

Accordingly, Writ Petition in W.P. No. 1298 of 2021 is allowed.”

(underlining made by this Court to supply emphasis)

7.To put it pithily, the stand of the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that even without going into the aspect as to whether

the alleged speech made by the petitioner demoralizes the

womenfolk of the State by portraying them as a commodity, the

impugned proceedings against the petitioner, so also the

recommendation made by the first respondent Commission to the

second respondent, are liable to be quashed on the solitary ground

of procedural violation itself.

8.Mr. K.M.D. Muhilan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

appearing for the second respondent, submitted that only after

following the mandates of the provisions of Section 7(1)(a) and 9(3)

of the TNSCW Act, was the recommendation dated 11.11.2025 made

by the first respondent Commission and not as contended by the

learned counsel for the petitioner.

9.Mr. David Sundar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for

the first respondent Commission, made the following submissions:

9.1. The impugned proceedings was initiated only

by a quorum of three members and not by the Chairperson

alone, unilaterally;

7/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P. (Crl.) No. 1418 of 2025

9.2. Only after conducting an investigation, hearing

the complainants and upon satisfaction that a prima facie

case has been made out, was the communication dated

11.11.2025 addressed to the second respondent; and

9.3. There is no need whatsoever to supply a copy

of the complaint along with the summons and even

according to the petitioner, the summons does contain the

names of the complainants together with their mobile

number.

10.On the basis of the above submissions, it is the stance of

the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent Commission

that there is no procedural violation and that apart, inasmuch as the

petitioner’s speech demoralizes the women community of the State,

the first respondent Commission has rightly recommended initiation

of criminal prosecution against the petitioner and hence, the writ

petition is liable to be dismissed.

11.Mr. K.C. Karl Marx, learned counsel for the private

respondents, submitted that the third respondent is the State

President of All India Democratic Women’s Association and the fourth

respondent is the General Secretary of the said Association, which is

8/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P. (Crl.) No. 1418 of 2025

a nation-wide organisation striving hard for women emancipation

and empowerment; based on their complaint against the petitioner,

who is not a layman but a serving Member of Parliament, for his

misogynistic speech in public, the first respondent Commission has

rightly taken cognizance of the complaint and recommended

initiation of criminal prosecution against the petitioner after finding

that a prima facie case was made out and hence, the impugned

proceedings and the communication dated 11.11.2025 do not

deserve quashment.

12.Having given anxious thought and consideration to the

rival submissions and perused the materials available on record, this

Court proceeds to analyse the issue on hand from the following two

angles:

1. Whether there is a procedural violation by the

first respondent Commission, as contended by the

petitioner; and

2. Whether the speech made by the petitioner is

tantamount to demoralizing the women community of the

State, thereby necessitating the first respondent

Commission to act on the complaint made by the private

respondents and recommend to the second respondent to

initiate criminal prosecution against the petitioner.

9/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P. (Crl.) No. 1418 of 2025

13.To answer the question at paragraph 12.1, supra, it

becomes imperative for this Court to extract Section 3(2), 7(3) and

9(3) of the TNSCW Act:

“3.Constitution of Commission. (2) The Commission shall consist

of –

(a)a Chairperson, who shall be an eminent woman committed to the

cause of women to be nominated by the Government;

(b)five members to be nominated by the Government from amongst

persons of ability and integrity, who have served the cause of women

or have had sufficient knowledge and experience of law and

legislation, administration of matters concerning advancement of

women or voluntary organization for women, or who have sufficient

experience in working in the field of economic development, health or

education of women:

7.Central Act 20 of 1990. Functions of the Commission.

(3)If the Commission, after investigating any matter, is

satisfied that there is a prima facie case, the Commission may refer the

matter to the authority concerned, including the police, and such

authority shall take appropriate action as per law.

Procedure to be regulated by Commission. — 9(3) All orders and

decisions of the Commission shall be authenticated by the Member

Secretary or any other officer of the Commission duly authorised by the

Member Secretary in this behalf.

(underlining made by this Court to supply emphasis)

14.From a glance of Section 3(2) of the TNSWC Act

extracted above, it is manifest that the Commission does not

constitute the Chairperson alone and apart from the Chairperson, the

Commission consists of five members as well.

15.Now, as regards compliance of the requirement under

Section 9(3) of the TNSCW Act, it is apropos to point out that when

Section 9(3) of the TNSWC Act is read conjunctively with Section

10/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P. (Crl.) No. 1418 of 2025

3(2) extracted above, it is evident that the Chairperson cannot take

any decision unilaterally. In the instant case, it is manifest that both

summons dated 24.10.2025 and the communication dated

11.11.2025 and also the office notes produced before this Court on

12.02.2026, have been signed only by the Chairperson and they do

not have the authentication by the Member Secretary. In such

perspective of the matter, this Court unhesitatingly holds that the

proceedings initiated by the Chairperson against the petitioner,

including the communication dated 11.11.2025 addressed to the

second respondent, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

16.Now, coming to compliance of Section 7(3) of the

TNSCW Act, even from a cursory reading of the said provision, it is

clear as daylight that before a prima facie case is made out, conduct

of an investigation is a sine qua non. In the instant case, no scintilla

of material has been produced before this Court to show that this

statutory requirement has been complied with, except a mere self

serving statement in the communication dated 11.11.2025 that a

prima facie case has been made out, without anything more. In this

regard, the decision of this Court in Mary Rajasekaran , supra, also

supports the case of the petitioner. Of course, this Court is cognizant

of the fact that the said decision was rendered in an entirely different

set of facts altogether.

11/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P. (Crl.) No. 1418 of 2025

17.That apart, at this juncture, it is not out of place to point

out that the first respondent Commission has not filed counter

affidavit. On 12.02.2026, i.e., the day on which this case was

reserved for orders, the learned Standing Counsel for the first

respondent Commission submitted to this Court, a photocopy of the

communication dated 11.11.2025 recommending to the second

respondent to initiate criminal prosecution against the petitioner,

together with a couple of office notes signed by the Chairperson of

the first respondent Commission.

18.Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the summons dated 24.10.2025 was not accompanied

by the copy of the complaint, it is the categorical stance of the first

respondent Commission that it will not circulate a copy of the

complaint mechanically but will decide it on a case-to-case basis.

The reason assigned for not furnishing a copy of the complaint to the

petitioner is that the first respondent Commission handles

complaints related to women’s rights and protection, which also

includes sexual offences against women in which the complaint of

the victim is confidential. This stance and reason therefor do not cut

ice with this Court for the simple reason that only if the allegations

levelled against the petitioner are made known to him, can he put

forth his defence. Further, the case in hand is not one arising from

the POCSO Act. In fact, the names and address of the complainants

12/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P. (Crl.) No. 1418 of 2025

and their contact number have been stated in the summons itself.

Having divulged the identity of the complainants in the summons,

the first respondent Commission cannot be heard to say that to

maintain confidentiality, the copy of the complaint was not served.

In other words, the first respondent Commission cannot blow both

hot and cold.

19.Next, though the first respondent Commission has taken

a stand that second summons was communicated to the petitioner

on 31.10.2025 to appear before it on 07.11.2025 and that the

petitioner did not appear on the said date, there is no proof for

having sent the second summons to the petitioner. In this

connection, this Court hastens to add that in the counter affidavit

filed by the fourth respondent, it has been unequivocally averred

that the first, second and third summonses were issued by the first

respondent Commission to the petitioner on 14.10.2025, 24.10.2025

and 31.10.2025 respectively. But, interestingly, there is no whisper

by the first respondent Commission qua the so-called first summons

dated 14.10.2025. It is beyond the ken of this Court as to how the

first respondent Commission and the private respondents can take

two different stands qua number of summonses issued. This glaring

and apparent variation qua number of summonses issued itself

prompts this Court to have a re-think over the credibility of the

stand of the first respondent Commission as regards issuance of

13/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P. (Crl.) No. 1418 of 2025

summons on 31.10.2025 requiring the petitioner to appear on

07.11.2025.

20.Superadded, with regard to the contention of the

petitioner that the memo and vakalatnama filed by his counsel were

refused to be accepted by the first respondent Commission, it is the

case of the first respondent Commission that the Commission

directly interacts with the victims and many of the victims cannot

afford to have legal counsel. This stand of the first respondent

Commission cannot be countenanced for the reason that this stand

does not have a statutory backing. To put it differently, the TNSCW

Act does not spell out so. Moreover, engaging a counsel to defend

his case is the victim’s botheration and not that of the first

respondent Commission. When the petitioner wanted to defend

himself by way of a counsel, nothing prevented the first respondent

Commission to accept the memo and vakalatnama filed by the

petitioner’s counsel.

21.In view of the discussion made at paragraphs 14 to 20,

supra, this Court has no incertitude in holding that there is, indeed,

procedural violation in the initiation of the impugned proceedings

against the petitioner and in fact, this Court deems it fit to even add

that it is not proper on the part of the first respondent Commission

to have closed the complaint ex parte. To be noted, it is settled law

14/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P. (Crl.) No. 1418 of 2025

that where a statute requires a particular act to be done in a

particular manner, the act has to be done in that manner alone as

has been held in crystal clear terms in State of Uttar Pradesh vs.

Singhara Singh [AIR 1964 SC 358] and Competent Authority

vs. Barangore Jute Factory and others [(2005) 13 SCC 477].

For the sake of ready reference, the relevant portion from Singhara

Singh, supra, is extracted below:

“8. Th e rule adopted in   Taylor   v.   Taylor   [(1875) 1 Ch D 426, 431] is well

recognised and is founded on sound principle. Its result is that if a statute has

conferred a power to do an act and has laid down the method in which that

power has to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any

other manner than that which has been prescribed. The principle behind the rule

is that if this were not so, the statutory provision might as well not have been

enacted. ………..”

(underlining made by this Court to supply emphasis)

22.Now, moving on to answer the question at paragraph

no.12.2, supra, it is profitable to advert to the speech made by the

petitioner in vernacular and this is culled out from the counter

affidavit of the fourth respondent:

15/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P. (Crl.) No. 1418 of 2025

23.Having gone through the petitioner’s aforesaid speech,

this Court is of the considered view that the same cannot be, by any

stretch of imagination, construed to be misogynistic in nature or

demeaning the womenfolk of the State as contended by the private

respondents and instead, it can only be construed as a critique of the

policy of the Government giving freebies. Just because of the fact

that the petitioner had stated that along with other commodities, the

Government may announce even one wife free to each citizen, it can

no way be inferred or understood that the petitioner, by his speech,

has equated women with commodities given by the Government

gratis.

24.In view of the above, this Court answers the question at

paragraph no.12.2, supra, in the negative.

25.Thus, in essence, the two questions at paragraph 12

having been answered in favour of the petitioner, the proceedings in

Case No.5279 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent Commission

and also the communication dated 11.11.2025 of the first

respondent Commission addressed to the second respondent, are

quashed.

16/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P. (Crl.) No. 1418 of 2025

26.Resultantly, this writ petition (criminal) stands allowed,

however, sans costs. Connected W.P.M.Ps. (criminal) are closed.

25.02.2026

cad

Index : Yes/No

N.C. : Yes

To

1. The Chairperson

Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women

Kalasa Mahal

Chepauk

Chennai

Tamil Nadu 600 005

2. The Director General of Police

Police Headquarters

Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai

Mylapore

Chennai 600 004

3. The Public Prosecutor

Madras High Court

Chennai 600 104

17/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P. (Crl.) No. 1418 of 2025

A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

cad

Pre-delivery order in

W.P. (Crl.) No.1418 of 2025

25.02.2026

18/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis