Madras HC Grants Pre-Arrest Bail to Scientist Dr. Ponraj Over Derogatory YouTube Remarks About Women
Justice R. Sakthivel granted anticipatory bail to former presidential advisor Dr. Ponraj, accused of making derogatory remarks about women on a YouTube channel, while cautioning public figures on digital speech.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras, on 22 May 2026, granted pre-arrest bail to Dr. Ponraj, a senior scientist and former science and technology advisor to President Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, in two separate criminal cases arising from a YouTube interview in which he allegedly made derogatory remarks about women associated with the IT wing of a political party. Justice R. Sakthivel, sitting singly, allowed both Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, finding that custodial interrogation was not necessary given the nature of the offences and the petitioner's deep roots in society. The court, however, issued a pointed observation that persons of high public stature must exercise self-restraint before speaking in digital forums.
The Two FIRs and the YouTube Interview
Dr. Ponraj, whose permanent address is in Virudhunagar district and who resides temporarily in Abiramapuram, Chennai, faced registration of two FIRs following an interview he gave on 27 March 2026 on a YouTube channel called “King 360”.
The first case, Crime No. 194 of 2026, was registered by the Cuddalore New Town Police Station. It alleged offences under Sections 79 and 353(1)(c) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, read with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The second case, Crime No. 59 of 2026, was registered by the CCB Cyber Crime Wing, Chennai, and alleged offences under Sections 79 and 296(b) of the BNS, 2023, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The prosecution's case was that Dr. Ponraj, during the interview, made statements regarding women supporting or belonging to the IT wing of a particular political party, characterising them as prostitutes, knowing that his statements would incite public outrage.
Petitioner's Case: Misquotation and Societal Intent
Senior Counsel Mr. N.R. Elango, assisted by Mr. Agilesh Kumar, appeared for Dr. Ponraj in both petitions. He submitted that the petitioner is a respectable personality, a senior scientist and public policy advisor, with no intent to defame or insult the modesty of women.
The defence argued that the statements were made to express dissatisfaction about young people, particularly women, being blindly influenced by cinema in their political choices. The purpose, counsel submitted, was to encourage analytical political thinking rather than celebrity worship. The statements were general in nature and did not target any particular identified group of women.
Counsel also pointed out that the interview video had been removed from the YouTube channel even before the complaints were filed, which he characterised as an act of responsibility. He further submitted that custodial interrogation was unnecessary given the nature of the alleged offences, that the petitioner had deep roots in society, and that he was willing to abide by any conditions the court might impose.
State's Opposition: Damage Already Done, Risk of Encouragement
Public Prosecutor Mr. R. John Sathyan opposed both petitions. He submitted that the petitioner's speech clearly attracted the offences alleged, and that the ultimate intention behind the statements was to support one political party by defaming another and its members.
On the removal of the video, the prosecution countered that material portions of the interview continued to circulate in the public forum even after the original was taken down from the “King 360” channel. Taking down the video, the State argued, could not remedy the damage already caused.
The prosecution further contended that a person who claims to be a responsible political commentator ought to have foreseen the consequences of such statements. Granting pre-arrest bail, the State warned, could potentially encourage others to make similarly defamatory and irresponsible statements in public forums, leading to law and order issues.
Court's Reasoning: Intent Is for Trial, but Digital Caution Is Non-Negotiable
Justice Sakthivel declined to express any view on the petitioner's intent behind the statements, holding that this was a matter for trial. The court's reasoning for granting bail rested on two principal findings: the nature of the offences alleged did not require custodial interrogation, and the petitioner's deep roots in society made the possibility of absconding less likely.
The court did not, however, leave the matter without comment on the broader conduct. Justice Sakthivel observed that a person who claims to be a respectable personality and a responsible political commentator must be very careful during a public interview, understanding the potential impact of his words on the general public.
The court noted that in the digital era, once a statement is made on a digital platform, it cannot be easily withdrawn. Even if the petitioner's intent was one of societal interest, he ought to have exercised utmost care before making a statement that could turn out to be morally provocative. The court stated that “a person who claims to be of a high stature, must exercise some self-restriction before expressing / delivering words in public forum.”
On the question of breach conditions, the court relied on the Supreme Court's directions in P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) 13 SCC 283], making clear that the jurisdictional Magistrate or Trial Court would be entitled to pass appropriate orders in the event of any breach.
Conditions Attached to Pre-Arrest Bail
Justice Sakthivel granted pre-arrest bail in both cases subject to eight conditions.
In each criminal case, Dr. Ponraj must execute a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 along with two sureties for a like sum before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate.
For Crime No. 194 of 2026 (Cuddalore New Town Police Station), he must appear and sign before that police station every Sunday at 10:00 a.m. until further orders.
For Crime No. 59 of 2026 (CCB Cyber Crime Wing, Chennai), he must appear and sign before that office every Tuesday and Friday at 10:00 a.m. until further orders.
He must make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. He must not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. He must not cause any threat to witnesses or tamper with evidence. He must furnish his residential address and mobile number to the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate.
Outcome
Both Crl.OP No. 13278 of 2026 and Crl.OP No. 13279 of 2026 were allowed on 22 May 2026, with pre-arrest bail granted to Dr. Ponraj subject to the conditions set out above. The Registry was directed to upload the order on the official website of the Madras High Court forthwith, with all concerned directed to act on the uploaded order without insisting on certified hard copies.