Revenge Porn And Legal Responses
What is Revenge Porn?
Revenge Porn refers to the non-consensual sharing or distribution of intimate images or videos of a person, typically by an ex-partner, with the intent to humiliate, harass, or blackmail the victim. It is a form of sexual abuse and cybercrime that can cause severe emotional and psychological trauma.
Legal Framework Addressing Revenge Porn in India
India does not have a standalone law specifically titled “Revenge Porn,” but several provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) deal with the offense.
Relevant IPC Sections:
Section 66E of the IT Act: Punishment for violation of privacy (captures private images without consent).
Section 67 of IT Act: Publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form.
Section 354C IPC: Voyeurism – watching or capturing images of a woman without her consent.
Section 354D IPC: Stalking, which can include cyberstalking.
Section 499 and 500 IPC: Defamation.
Section 509 IPC: Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.
Section 420 IPC: Cheating, if there was deceit involved.
Section Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012: For cases involving minors.
Important Case Laws on Revenge Porn and Legal Responses in India
Case 1: State of Tamil Nadu vs. Suhas Katti (2004)
Facts: The accused created a fake Yahoo Messenger profile of a woman and posted obscene messages using her identity, harassing her.
Legal Issue: Whether using someone else’s identity to post obscene content constitutes a criminal offense.
Ruling: The accused was convicted under Section 66 of IT Act (now read with relevant sections), 509 IPC and 67 IPC for sending offensive messages and defaming the victim.
Significance: Early recognition of online impersonation and harassment as criminal acts relevant to revenge porn cases.
Case 2: Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015)
While this case primarily dealt with striking down Section 66A of the IT Act, it highlighted the need for strong laws against misuse of electronic communication, paving way for better protection against cybercrimes including revenge porn.
Case 3: State vs. Naresh (2018)
Facts: The accused shared a sexually explicit video of the victim (his ex-girlfriend) without her consent on social media.
Legal Issue: Applicability of IPC and IT Act provisions for non-consensual sharing.
Ruling: The court held the accused guilty under Sections 66E and 67 of the IT Act, and Sections 354C and 509 IPC, emphasizing the violation of privacy and dignity.
Significance: Affirmed that non-consensual sharing of intimate videos is punishable and recognized as revenge porn.
Case 4: XYZ vs. Union of India & Anr (2017)
Facts: Victim sought guidelines to prevent misuse of intimate images.
Legal Issue: Need for specific guidelines and preventive measures against revenge porn.
Ruling: Supreme Court directed the Ministry of Home Affairs and IT Ministry to formulate guidelines to address non-consensual circulation of intimate content, and also emphasized setting up fast-track courts.
Significance: Institutional recognition of revenge porn as a grave issue requiring dedicated legal remedies.
Case 5: Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2021)
Facts: The accused posted intimate videos of the victim on social media to humiliate her after a breakup.
Legal Issue: Whether the accused is liable under criminal law.
Ruling: The court convicted the accused under Sections 66E, 67, 354C, and 509 IPC, and awarded compensation to the victim.
Significance: Strong judicial stance against revenge porn with emphasis on victim compensation.
Case 6: Union of India vs. Raju (2019)
Facts: The accused threatened to circulate intimate videos of the victim to extort money.
Legal Issue: Whether extortion coupled with revenge porn attracts additional criminal liability.
Ruling: The court held that such acts attract charges under Section 384 IPC (extortion) along with IT Act provisions.
Significance: Clarified the intersection of extortion and revenge porn offenses.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Facts | Legal Provisions | Outcome | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| State of Tamil Nadu vs. Suhas Katti (2004) | Fake profile, obscene posts | Sec 66 IT Act, 509, 67 IPC | Conviction | Early recognition of online impersonation |
| State vs. Naresh (2018) | Shared explicit video without consent | Sec 66E, 67 IT Act, 354C, 509 IPC | Conviction | Affirmed punishability of revenge porn |
| XYZ vs. Union of India (2017) | Guidelines sought | Directed Govt to frame guidelines | Directives for policy | Institutional recognition of revenge porn |
| Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) | Posting videos post-breakup | Sec 66E, 67, 354C, 509 IPC | Conviction + compensation | Strong judicial stance |
| Union of India vs. Raju (2019) | Threat of circulating videos for extortion | Sec 384 IPC + IT Act | Conviction | Intersection of extortion and revenge porn |
Key Legal Points on Revenge Porn in India
Non-consensual sharing of intimate images/videos is a crime under existing IT Act and IPC provisions.
Courts have repeatedly held perpetrators criminally liable, awarding convictions and compensation.
Victims are entitled to privacy, dignity, and protection under criminal law.
There is growing recognition of the need for specific legislation or clearer guidelines to handle revenge porn effectively.
Law enforcement agencies have been urged to treat revenge porn cases with urgency and sensitivity.
Conclusion
Revenge porn is a grave violation of an individual's privacy and dignity, and Indian courts have consistently condemned such acts through application of existing laws. While the legal framework is evolving, the judiciary’s proactive role in punishing offenders and protecting victims remains crucial.
RELATED Blog
0 comments