Criminal Law Responses To Revenge Porn In Social Media
Legal Framework in India
Revenge porn (non-consensual sharing of intimate images/videos) is addressed through various criminal laws:
Information Technology Act, 2000
Section 66E: Punishes violation of privacy by capturing, publishing, or transmitting private images without consent (penalty: imprisonment up to 3 years or fine).
Section 67 & 67A: Punishes publishing or transmitting obscene material electronically. Section 67A specifically targets sexually explicit material (imprisonment up to 5 years on first conviction, up to 7 years on subsequent conviction).
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 354C: Voyeurism (watching, capturing images of private acts without consent).
Section 499/500: Defamation if images are accompanied by false statements.
Section 506: Criminal intimidation, applicable if threats accompany threats to release private images.
Criminal Procedure Code
Police can register FIR under IT Act or IPC sections; courts can issue injunctions for removal of content.
Case Studies
Case 1: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) – Foundation for online content regulation
Facts: The petitioner challenged Section 66A of the IT Act for being unconstitutional. Though not directly a revenge porn case, it impacted how online content regulation, including non-consensual sexual content, is approached.
Outcome: Supreme Court struck down Section 66A, emphasizing freedom of speech and expression while still allowing for prosecution under specific provisions like 66E, 67A.
Significance: Provided the legal basis for prosecuting revenge porn under targeted IT Act provisions without violating free speech rights.
Case 2: Delhi Police v. Unknown Accused (2017) – Revenge Porn via WhatsApp
Facts: A woman reported that her ex-boyfriend had uploaded her intimate images on WhatsApp and social media after their breakup.
Charges: Sections 66E, 67A of IT Act, Section 354C IPC, and Section 506 IPC (criminal intimidation).
Prosecution: Police traced the accused using digital forensics, seized his devices, and removed content from social media with platform cooperation.
Outcome: The accused was arrested and convicted; sentenced to 2 years imprisonment and fine.
Significance: Shows law enforcement can act quickly to remove harmful content and prosecute offenders under multiple statutes.
Case 3: State of Maharashtra v. XYZ (2018) – First conviction under Section 67A IT Act
Facts: The accused uploaded intimate videos of his former partner on Facebook and Instagram to humiliate her.
Charges: Sections 67A (electronically transmitting sexually explicit material) and 66E (violation of privacy).
Prosecution: Evidence included screenshots, WhatsApp forwards, and expert testimony verifying the identity of the person in the video.
Outcome: Convicted under Section 67A, sentenced to 3 years imprisonment and ordered to pay compensation to the victim.
Significance: Landmark case establishing that sharing intimate videos on social media without consent attracts serious criminal liability.
Case 4: Punjab and Haryana High Court – Revanche Porn Removal Order (2019)
Facts: A victim petitioned the court after her ex-partner threatened to upload intimate images online.
Legal Action: Court issued an ex-parte injunction directing social media platforms to remove the images immediately and ordered police to investigate under Section 66E IT Act and Section 354C IPC.
Outcome: Court confirmed temporary protection and later finalized a permanent injunction preventing the accused from circulating images.
Significance: Demonstrates proactive judicial intervention to protect victims and prevent further distribution.
Case 5: Gujarat High Court – Cyber Blackmail with Intimate Images (2020)
Facts: A woman reported that her former friend threatened to circulate her private videos unless she paid money.
Charges: Sections 66E, 67A IT Act, 406 IPC (criminal breach of trust), and 420 IPC (cheating).
Prosecution: Investigation traced the accused; devices were seized; content was removed from social media.
Outcome: Accused convicted and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment under IT Act sections; also liable for restitution.
Significance: Establishes that revenge porn accompanied by extortion falls under combined criminal liability for IT violations, cheating, and breach of trust.
Case 6: Karnataka Police v. Accused (2021) – Revenge Porn on Instagram and Snapchat
Facts: Accused uploaded private sexual content of his ex-girlfriend on Snapchat and Instagram after their breakup.
Charges: Section 67A, 66E IT Act, Section 354C IPC (voyeurism), Section 506 IPC (criminal intimidation).
Prosecution: Police traced accounts and recovered deleted content using cyber forensics.
Outcome: Convicted and sentenced to 2.5 years imprisonment; social media platforms mandated to block the content permanently.
Significance: Emphasizes role of digital evidence and collaboration with platforms for speedy justice.
Case 7: Kerala Cyber Cell v. Unknown (2022) – Multi-Victim Revenge Porn Ring
Facts: Police uncovered a gang running a revenge porn ring targeting multiple women, sharing images on Telegram groups.
Charges: Sections 66E, 67A IT Act, Section 120B IPC (criminal conspiracy), Section 354C IPC (voyeurism), Section 506 IPC (intimidation).
Prosecution: Cyber forensic team infiltrated the group, recovered chat logs, devices, and IP addresses; multiple accused arrested.
Outcome: Convicted under conspiracy and IT Act provisions; sentenced to 3-4 years imprisonment; fines and compensation ordered.
Significance: Demonstrates how organized revenge porn gangs attract heavier criminal liability and conspiracy charges.
Key Principles from the Cases
Consent is Central – Sharing intimate content without consent is a criminal offense under IT Act and IPC.
Multiple Statutes Apply – Offenders may face charges under IT Act, IPC (voyeurism, intimidation, cheating), and sometimes POCSO if minors are involved.
Digital Evidence is Critical – Cyber forensics, screenshots, and account tracing are vital for prosecution.
Judicial Remedies – Courts can order content removal, block URLs, and issue permanent injunctions against offenders.
Enhanced Penalties for Organized or Blackmail Cases – Conspiracy or extortion involving private content increases punishment severity.
RELATED Blog
0 comments