Political criticism that ruling party may even ‘give a wife to everyone’ is not misogynistic: Madras High Court

All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) Rajya Sabha member C.Ve. Shanmugam’s speech that the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) government which had been doling out cash gifts and other freebies “may even give a wife to everyone,” cannot be termed as misogynistic, the Madras High Court held on Wednesday.

Quashing the proceedings initiated against the Member of Parliament (MP) by the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women, Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira said the MP’s speech could at best be considered only as a criticism of the government policies of giving away freebies and not as a sexist comment aimed at demeaning women.

“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 (the complainants),” the judge wrote.

He went on to state: “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.”

The judge also agreed with the MP’s counsel M. Mohamed Riyaz that the action initiated by the TNSCW suffered from procedural violations too and hence the Director General of Police (DGP) could not be allowed to proceed with the recommendation made by the commission for initiating criminal prosecution against the MP.

Justice Chandira pointed out that the TNSCW Act, 2008 requires the commission to conduct a detailed inquiry before arriving at a prima facie satisfaction with respect to the complaints received by it and requires all orders and decisions taken by the commission to be authenticated by the Member Secretary.

Further, the Act makes it clear that the term ‘commission’ would not refer to the chairperson alone and that it would include the five members as well. However, in the instant case, all proceedings initiated against the MP had been signed only by the chairperson and not authenticated by the Member Secretary, he said.

“In such perspective of the matter, this court unhesitatingly holds that the proceedings initiated by the Chairperson against the petitioner, including the communication dated November 11, 2025 addressed to the second respondent (DGP), cannot be sustained in the eyes of law,” the judge wrote.

He also pointed out that the TNSCW had not conduct any inquiry before recommending criminal prosecution and it had not even served upon the MP a copy of the complaint that it had received from All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA) State president G. Pramila and secretary A. Radhika regarding the speech.