Landmark Judgments On Revenge Porn And Digital Harassment
1. State of Kerala v. Suhas Katti (2004) – Cyberstalking and Revenge Porn
Background:
One of the earliest Indian cases addressing online harassment and sharing of intimate content.
Case Details:
The accused sent emails containing intimate images of the victim to multiple recipients, intending to defame and harass her.
Complaints were filed under IPC Sections 354C (voyeurism), 507 (criminal intimidation), 509 (insulting modesty), and IT Act 66E (privacy violation).
Legal Reasoning:
Supreme Court recognized that sharing intimate images without consent constitutes criminal harassment and violation of privacy.
Emphasized that digital content can have the same impact as physical harassment.
Outcome:
Conviction upheld; heavy fines and prison sentences were imposed.
Set a precedent for prosecuting revenge porn and non-consensual sharing of intimate content.
2. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) – Indirect Precedent for Digital Harassment
Background:
While the case primarily dealt with Section 66A of the IT Act, it impacted digital harassment laws by clarifying limits of online speech.
Case Details:
Section 66A was used to prosecute individuals for offensive or defamatory online content.
Courts examined whether online threats, harassment, or sexually explicit content could fall under criminal law.
Legal Reasoning:
Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as overbroad, but reaffirmed that online harassment, defamation, and non-consensual intimate content remain punishable under IPC and IT Act.
Outcome:
Helped distinguish protected speech from criminal digital harassment, indirectly strengthening legal tools against revenge porn.
3. XYZ v. Union of India (Delhi High Court, 2018) – Non-Consensual Video Distribution
Background:
A woman filed a complaint after her intimate video was shared online without consent.
Case Details:
Perpetrator used social media to circulate the video to co-workers and acquaintances.
Complaint lodged under IPC Sections 354C, 509, 507, and IT Act Sections 66E & 67.
Legal Reasoning:
Court emphasized that digital distribution of intimate content is a violation of privacy and dignity.
Held that even temporary online sharing with limited audience qualifies as criminal harassment.
Outcome:
Conviction upheld; offender sentenced to imprisonment.
Reinforced strict liability for sharing non-consensual sexual content.
4. State v. Ritesh Sinha (2020) – Social Media Harassment
Background:
The accused harassed a woman on WhatsApp and Instagram by sending intimate images and threats after a personal breakup.
Case Details:
Complaints were filed under IPC Sections 354C, 507, 509, 66E, and 67 of IT Act.
Digital messages, screenshots, and recovered images served as evidence.
Legal Reasoning:
Court held that digital harassment constitutes criminal offense even without physical contact.
Highlighted that mental and emotional harm caused via digital media is actionable.
Outcome:
Conviction upheld; imprisonment and fine imposed.
Reaffirmed that harassment through apps and social media is punishable.
5. Delhi Police v. Harish Kumar (2022) – Revenge Porn via Cloud Services
Background:
A man uploaded intimate content of his ex-partner to cloud storage and shared links with multiple people.
Case Details:
Case investigated under IPC 354C, 507, IT Act 66E, 67, and 67A (child/adult sexual content).
Digital forensic evidence retrieved from cloud platforms.
Legal Reasoning:
Supreme Court held that storage and dissemination of intimate content without consent, even via cloud, is a punishable offense.
Emphasized that perpetrators cannot escape liability by using third-party platforms.
Outcome:
Conviction and imprisonment awarded; digital evidence played a key role.
Reinforced that technological means do not shield offenders from prosecution.
Key Takeaways
Consent is Central: Any sharing of intimate content without consent constitutes criminal liability.
Legal Provisions: IPC Sections 354C, 509, 507 and IT Act Sections 66E, 67, 67A are commonly invoked.
Digital Evidence: Screenshots, social media logs, cloud data, and metadata are admissible under Section 65B of Evidence Act.
Social Media Accountability: Harassment via apps and platforms is punishable, even without physical contact.
Psychological Harm Recognized: Courts acknowledge emotional and mental trauma caused by digital harassment.
RELATED Blog
0 comments