A Supreme Court advocate provided a legal lens, acknowledging the commonality of harassment in crowded spaces like buses and trains. He noted that many women avoid formal complaints due to fears of prolonged legal battles or family repercussions

In a heartbreaking incident that has ignited widespread controversy, a 42-year-old man named Deepak from Kerala died by suicide after being accused of sexual harassment in a viral video recorded on a crowded bus. The video, captured by a woman named Shimjitta, showed Deepak's elbow brushing against her body during their commute. Shimjitta uploaded the footage online, alleging it constituted sexual harassment, which quickly amassed millions of views. Deepak's family later approached the city police commissioner claiming the public shaming caused severe mental distress leading to his death.

In response, Shimjitta has been booked under relevant laws and is reportedly absconding, prompting an investigation into the authenticity of the video and the circumstances surrounding the event.The viral nature of the video amplified the tragedy, as Deepak reportedly faced immense public scrutiny without an opportunity to defend himself. His family emphasized that the online exposure, driven by the pursuit of views, created a "name and shame" scenario that overwhelmed him. This case has spotlighted the double-edged sword of social media, where quick uploads can empower victims but also devastate lives if allegations prove unfounded.

Police are now examining the video scientifically, including angles and authenticity, to determine if the contact was intentional or incidental. The absence of an immediate police complaint from Shimjitta has further fuelled speculation about her motives, with some suggesting she aimed to gain traction as a content creator, given her previous videos had limited reach. A heated debate ensued on various platforms featuring people from various walks of life who dissected the incident, the video's implications, and broader societal issues.

A women's activist stressed the need for patience amid the ongoing investigation, cautioning against premature conclusions. She argued that jumping to blame the woman perpetuates patriarchal biases, noting, "Why people are jumping in conclusion without the investigation? Investigation is going on now. It will be decided where the authenticity of the video and whether it was the angle and everything scientifically everything will be examined." She highlighted the prevalence of unreported sexual harassment on public transport, where women often face violations but hesitate to report due to family pressures or dependency on their jobs. She defended strong laws post the Justice Verma Committee, asserting that misuse by a few does not invalidate protections for the many and if Shimjitta's claim is false, she would face consequences under the law.

Men’s rights activists countered this view sharply, questioning the video's narrative and Shimjitta's actions. They pointed out inconsistencies, such as Shimjitta starting the recording before any apparent contact and positioning herself close to Deepak despite available space. "She had already started shooting as if she somehow had premonition that he is going to sexually abuse her," they remarked, adding that Shimjitta's "disturbing smirk" and pursuit of views suggested exploitation. They also drew parallels to other cases involving false accusations where men lost livelihoods without due process. They criticized the lack of punishment for false claims. Emphasizing men's vulnerability, they urged them to document their side and avoid suicide, advocating for balanced scrutiny rather than presuming guilt based on social media posts.

A Supreme Court advocate provided a legal lens, acknowledging the commonality of harassment in crowded spaces like buses and trains. He noted that many women avoid formal complaints due to fears of prolonged legal battles or family repercussions, making social media a tool for voicing grievances. "If something wrong has happened with me and because of that embarrassment you are committing suicide does not mean that it's me who should be put behind the bars," he argued, warning that holding women liable could deter genuine victims. However, he stressed the importance of investigation, suggesting that if the video is proven false or morphed, Shimjitta should face trial and punishment to prevent misuse.

A former IPS officer offered a pragmatic enforcement perspective, recognizing the frequent harassment women endure on public transport, often ignored out of frustration. He described Shimjitta as a "courageous woman" who sought visibility through reels but lamented the tragic outcome. "Abetment to suicide... you hardly see any punishment and innocent life is gone," he said, noting that such charges rarely lead to convictions. He suggested Shimjitta could have alerted the driver or police immediately instead of prioritizing online exposure, which escalated the situation. He balanced the discussion by affirming women's need for protection while cautioning against overreach by a minority, concluding that legal safeguards for abetment offer little recourse, leaving families in grief without justice.

The ex-cop echoed concerns about overboard actions leading to suicides among the innocent, while the lawyer advocated for truth through investigation, emphasizing that lies unravel under scrutiny. The debate underscored a critical tension: empowering victims through digital platforms versus ensuring due process to prevent irreversible harm. As the investigation unfolds, this case serves as a cautionary tale on the perils of viral justice, urging society to balance empathy for harassment survivors with protections against unfounded accusations.