Madras High Court Grants Relief to AIADMK Leader Shanmugam, Overturns Women's Commission Order
In a significant legal development, the Madras High Court on Wednesday provided a major reprieve to AIADMK Rajya Sabha member and former law minister C Ve Shanmugam. The court quashed an order issued by the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women, which had directed the Director General of Police (DGP) to initiate criminal proceedings against Shanmugam over alleged derogatory remarks against women.
Procedural Grounds Lead to Quashing of Commission's Directive
Justice A D Jagadish Chandira delivered the ruling while allowing a petition filed by Shanmugam, who challenged the commission's order dated November 11, 2025. The court's decision was primarily based on procedural irregularities identified in the commission's actions.
According to the provisions governing the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women, the body is not constituted by the chairperson alone but includes five members. However, the court noted that the summons issued against Shanmugam and the recommendation to the DGP were signed solely by the chairperson, without the involvement of other members.
"In such a perspective of the matter, this court unhesitatingly holds that the proceedings initiated by the chairperson against the petitioner, including the recommendation dated Nov 11, 2025, addressed to the DGP, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law," Justice Chandira stated in the order.
Court Clears Shanmugam of Derogatory Remarks Allegations
Beyond procedural issues, the court also addressed the substance of the allegations against Shanmugam. After reviewing his speech, the judge concluded that the remarks could not be construed as misogynistic or demeaning to women.
"Having gone through the petitioner's 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," the court observed.
The judge elaborated that Shanmugam's comments were intended as a critique of government policies on freebies, rather than an insult to women. "Instead, it can only be construed as a critique of the policy of the govt giving freebies. Just because of the fact that the petitioner had stated that along with other commodities, the govt 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 govt gratis," the order added.
This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to legal procedures in quasi-judicial bodies and highlights the court's role in interpreting contentious political speeches within the framework of free expression and critique.
