The Supreme Court made it clear to actor and former Tamil Nadu MLA S. Ve Shekher on Friday, August 18 that a person who mechanically forwards abusive or derogatory social media posts without actually reading or thinking them through is liable to face the consequences, which may extend to criminal action. Actor S Ve Shekher found himself entangled in a legal battle after he shared a post on social media that contained derogatory remarks against women journalists. The 72-year-old actor's plea was dismissed by the court, marking a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate surrounding responsible social media usage. Following his controversial post on Facebook, multiple criminal cases were lodged against Shekher in various districts of Tamil Nadu.Shekher's lawyer argued that his client had promptly removed the offensive post upon realizing the mistake and had issued an unconditional apology. He also submitted that the actor, who has a wide following on social media, shared someone else's post inadvertently without reading it as his vision was blurred at that time. A Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and P.K. Mishra did not seem very impressed when Mr. Shekher, who is accused of sharing a vulgar post about women journalists, said he had applied eye drops and his fingers accidentally touched the ‘send’ button.The top court refused to interfere with the Madras High Court decision, refusing to quash multiple criminal cases filed against Mr. Shekher.The criminal cases were filed by a journalists' association in 2018 across Chennai, Karur, and Tirunelveli districts. Shekher approached the Supreme Court after the Madras High Court rejected his plea to quash the criminal proceedings.The High Court had expressed its reluctance to even translate the post, saying the message was “despicable”, to say the least. It stated that messages shared on social media are like arrows that have been released from a bow. Once sent, the sender must take responsibility for the damage caused by those messages. The court highlighted that an apology might not suffice once harm has been done. The court's stance reinforces the idea that online actions can have serious consequences, even for public figures.