Revenge Porn, Non-Consensual Sharing Of Images, And Privacy Invasion
🔹 1. Introduction: Revenge Porn & Non-Consensual Image Sharing
Revenge porn refers to the non-consensual sharing of private, sexually explicit images or videos of a person, typically by a former partner, with the intent to humiliate, harass, or cause distress.
This act constitutes a serious violation of privacy, bodily autonomy, and dignity, and can lead to social stigma, mental trauma, and professional harm for victims.
🔹 2. Legal Framework in India
Relevant Laws:
Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act):
Section 66E – Punishes violation of privacy (capturing, publishing or transmitting private images without consent).
Section 67 & 67A – Punish publishing or transmitting obscene or sexually explicit material in electronic form.
Section 67B – Covers material depicting children (child pornography).
Indian Penal Code (IPC):
Section 354C – Voyeurism (watching or capturing images of a woman engaged in a private act without consent).
Section 354D – Stalking.
Section 499, 500 – Defamation.
Section 509 – Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.
Constitutional Protection:
Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty includes right to privacy (recognized in Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017).
🔹 3. Detailed Case Laws
Case 1: State of West Bengal v. Animesh Boxi (2018)
Court: City Sessions Court, Barasat (West Bengal)
Facts:
The accused created a fake Facebook account in his ex-girlfriend’s name and uploaded intimate photos of her without her consent.
He shared the content with obscene remarks intending to humiliate her after their breakup.
Judgment:
The court found the accused guilty under Sections 354C, 354D IPC, and Sections 66E, 67, and 67A of the IT Act.
Sentence: 5 years imprisonment and a fine.
Significance:
First conviction in India for “revenge porn.”
It reinforced that digital consent is as crucial as physical consent and recognized online privacy violations as criminal offences.
Case 2: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts:
Although not directly about revenge porn, this case is vital for establishing the constitutional right to privacy under Article 21.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that privacy is a fundamental right inherent in the right to life and personal liberty.
Any breach of an individual’s private space, including unauthorized dissemination of intimate images, violates this right.
Significance:
Forms the constitutional foundation for protecting victims of image-based sexual abuse.
Provides grounds for victims to seek redress under constitutional law, not only criminal law.
Case 3: Ritu Kohli v. Unknown (1999)
Court: Delhi (Cyber Crime Cell Investigation)
Facts:
A man impersonated Ritu Kohli on a chat site, sharing her phone number and engaging in obscene conversations using her identity.
She received numerous harassing calls from strangers.
Judgment/Outcome:
The Delhi Police filed the case under Sections 509 IPC and 66 of the IT Act (later replaced by 66E).
The case exposed the need for specialized cyber laws to address online impersonation and privacy breaches.
Significance:
One of India’s earliest cybercrime cases involving violation of privacy and non-consensual use of personal information.
Laid groundwork for future amendments in the IT Act.
Case 4: People v. Bollaert (2014, USA)
Court: Superior Court of California
Facts:
Kevin Bollaert ran a website “UGotPosted,” allowing users to post explicit photos of individuals without consent, along with personal details.
He also operated a second site that offered to remove the photos for a fee, amounting to extortion.
Judgment:
Found guilty of revenge porn, identity theft, and extortion.
Sentenced to 18 years in prison.
Significance:
Landmark U.S. case establishing criminal liability for hosting revenge porn platforms.
Recognized revenge porn as a distinct cybercrime, not protected by free speech.
Case 5: M.N. Govindaraj v. State of Tamil Nadu (2020)
Court: Madras High Court
Facts:
The accused shared intimate videos of his ex-girlfriend on social media after a dispute.
The victim filed a complaint for criminal intimidation, obscenity, and violation of privacy.
Judgment:
The court upheld charges under Sections 66E, 67, and 67A of the IT Act, along with Sections 354C and 506 IPC.
Observed that non-consensual circulation of intimate images amounts to sexual harassment and privacy invasion.
Significance:
Strengthened the interpretation of “digital sexual violence.”
Emphasized the duty of police to act promptly in cyber harassment and privacy violation cases.
Case 6: ABC v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 Delhi High Court
Facts:
The petitioner’s private videos were shared on WhatsApp groups by her ex-partner.
She sought directions for removal of content and protection of her identity.
Judgment:
The Delhi High Court ordered immediate removal of the videos from online platforms.
Recognized the mental trauma and stigma caused by non-consensual circulation.
Significance:
Highlighted the obligation of intermediaries (social media platforms) to act swiftly upon complaints under the IT Rules, 2021.
🔹 4. Conclusion
Revenge porn and non-consensual image sharing are grave violations of privacy, dignity, and bodily autonomy. Courts have evolved from treating such acts as obscenity or defamation to recognizing them as distinct forms of digital sexual violence.
Key Takeaways:
Consent is central: Sharing private content without consent is criminal, regardless of intent.
Right to Privacy (Art. 21) provides constitutional protection against such violations.
Courts are increasingly imposing strong penalties to deter offenders.
Tech companies must assist in swift removal and identification of perpetrators.
RELATED Blog
comments