Digital Sexual Offences
What Are Digital Sexual Offences
Digital sexual offences refer to crimes that involve sexual harassment, abuse, or exploitation through digital means—including the internet, smartphones, apps, and other electronic platforms.
🚨 Common Forms of Digital Sexual Offences:
Non-consensual sharing of intimate images (aka revenge porn)
Cyberstalking or sexual harassment online
Deepfake pornography
Child sexual abuse material (CSAM)
Voyeurism using hidden cameras
Sextortion (threatening to publish private info/images)
⚖️ Legal Framework (Example: India & UK)
India:
Section 67, 67A of IT Act
Sections 354A–D, 376, 509 IPC
POCSO Act (for minors)
UK:
Sexual Offences Act 2003
Communications Act 2003
Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019
Domestic Abuse Act 2021
🧾 Landmark Cases on Digital Sexual Offences
1. State v. Anvar P.V. (Kerala, India, 2014)
Facts: Involved use of digital evidence in a sexual assault case, where mobile messages and emails were submitted.
Issue: Whether electronic evidence is admissible without proper certification.
Ruling: Supreme Court clarified Section 65B of the Evidence Act—electronic evidence must be properly authenticated.
Takeaway: Critical for digital sexual offence cases—evidence must follow strict procedures to be valid.
2. R v. McGrath (UK, 2005)
Facts: The accused used covert webcams to record women in private spaces.
Charges: Voyeurism and digital intrusion under the Sexual Offences Act.
Ruling: Convicted; emphasized non-consensual recording is a sexual offence, even without physical contact.
Takeaway: Secret recordings are treated seriously—digital voyeurism = sexual offence.
3. R v. GS (UK, 2020)
Facts: Accused created deepfake pornographic videos using real women’s faces.
Ruling: Court found it amounted to image-based sexual abuse.
Takeaway: Even digitally altered sexual content can lead to criminal liability.
4. X v. Y (Delhi HC, 2022)
Facts: Victim’s private images were shared by ex-partner without consent.
Issue: Right to be forgotten and criminal charges under IPC and IT Act.
Ruling: Court ordered takedown, FIR registration, and stressed privacy and dignity as fundamental rights.
Takeaway: Sharing intimate images without consent is both a crime and rights violation.
5. State v. Michael Williams (USA, 2008)
Facts: Defendant posed as teen online to lure minors into sending nude images.
Ruling: U.S. Supreme Court upheld federal child pornography laws and online enticement statutes.
Takeaway: Online grooming + digital exploitation of minors = severe federal offence.
6. Kamlesh Vaswani v. Union of India (India, Ongoing PIL)
Issue: Demands regulation and blocking of pornographic websites, citing harm to women and children.
Outcome: Supreme Court directed government to develop blocking mechanisms and educate users.
Takeaway: Courts recognize the societal and individual harm from digital sexual content, even if not directly criminal.
📍 Summary Table
| Case | Jurisdiction | Type of Offence | Key Legal Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| State v. Anvar P.V. | India | Use of digital evidence | Proper certification under Sec 65B is essential |
| R v. McGrath | UK | Digital voyeurism | Secret recording = sexual offence |
| R v. GS | UK | Deepfake pornography | Altered images still count as abuse |
| X v. Y | India | Revenge porn | Privacy & dignity protected by law |
| State v. Michael Williams | USA | Online grooming | Digital luring of minors = federal crime |
| Kamlesh Vaswani v. Union of India | India | Harm from digital porn | Courts push for regulatory frameworks |
⚖️ Key Legal Takeaways:
Consent is key — any sharing or capturing of intimate content without consent is a crime.
Digital evidence is powerful but must be handled correctly (e.g., certification under law).
Victims can demand takedown, FIR, and even constitutional remedies.
Tech-assisted offences like deepfakes and sextortion are legally actionable.
Minors are especially protected under child safety laws like POCSO or federal laws in the U.S.
RELATED Blog
comments