UP Police Doing A Poor Job In Probing Cyber Crimes, Misuse Of Non-Consensual Images: Allahabad HC
“UP Police Doing A Poor Job In Probing Cyber Crimes, Misuse Of Non-Consensual Images – Allahabad HC”
Topic Explanation:
The Allahabad High Court recently raised concerns over the inefficiency of the UP Police in investigating cyber crimes, particularly cases involving misuse of non-consensual intimate images. These cases usually involve sharing private images or videos without the consent of the individual, often leading to harassment, defamation, and psychological trauma.
The court observed that police often fail to act promptly or use proper cyber-forensic methods, which results in loss of digital evidence and denial of justice to the victims. The court emphasized that the police must take cybercrime cases seriously and investigate them with technical expertise.
Key Observations by Allahabad HC:
Delay in Investigation: Many cybercrime complaints are not registered on time, causing destruction or loss of digital evidence.
Insufficient Technical Expertise: Police often lack trained cyber experts, which hampers forensic investigations.
Impact on Victims: Mishandling of such cases can lead to mental trauma, harassment, and loss of privacy for the victim.
Legal Duty: It is the state’s constitutional duty to protect citizens’ right to privacy, dignity, and security under Article 21.
The court issued directions to the UP Police to:
Immediately register FIRs for cyber harassment and misuse of non-consensual images.
Use trained cyber cells for proper investigation.
Keep the victim informed about the progress of the case.
Relevant Case Law:
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1
The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, emphasizing freedom of speech, but clarified that content violating privacy or dignity can be punished under other provisions like Section 66E (violation of privacy) and Section 67 (obscene content).
Relevance: Misuse of non-consensual images falls under these provisions, and victims have the right to seek legal remedies.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam (Allahabad HC, 2023)
The court reprimanded the UP Police for lax investigation in a revenge porn case.
Ordered: Immediate FIR registration, cyber forensic investigation, and regular updates to the victim.
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1
Supreme Court recognized right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.
Relevance: Unauthorized sharing of intimate images is a violation of privacy and dignity.
Relevant Laws Applicable:
Indian Penal Code (IPC):
Section 354C: Voyeurism (taking pictures/videos of private acts without consent)
Section 499/500: Defamation if images are shared to harm reputation
Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act):
Section 66E: Violation of privacy
Section 67: Publishing obscene material in electronic form
Section 66F: Cyber terrorism (for extreme cases)
CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure):
Section 154: Registration of FIR
Police are duty-bound to investigate complaints promptly to protect citizens’ rights.
Conclusion:
The Allahabad High Court’s criticism highlights systemic issues in cybercrime investigations by the UP Police. Misuse of non-consensual images not only violates privacy and dignity but also mental health and reputation of the victim. Courts now increasingly direct police to act swiftly, use cyber forensic tools, and keep victims informed, reinforcing constitutional protections under Article 21 and cyber laws under IPC and IT Act.
RELATED Blog
0 comments