Revenge Porn Circulation
π What is Revenge Porn?
Revenge Porn refers to the non-consensual sharing or circulation of intimate images or videos of a person, usually by an ex-partner or someone with a grudge, with the intent to humiliate, harass, or threaten the victim. This act is a serious violation of privacy and dignity.
π Legal Provisions in India Addressing Revenge Porn
Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 β Punishment for violation of privacy (publishing or transmitting private images without consent).
Section 67 of the IT Act β Publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form.
Section 354C IPC (introduced by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013) β Voyeurism.
Section 509 IPC β Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.
Section 499 IPC β Defamation (sometimes used in connected cases).
Section 66A IT Act (now struck down but relevant for past cases).
π Elements of the Offence
Circulation or sharing of intimate images/videos without consent.
Intent to cause harm, humiliation, or insult.
Violation of victimβs privacy and dignity.
Use of electronic means such as social media, WhatsApp, emails, etc.
βοΈ Important Case Laws on Revenge Porn Circulation in India
βοΈ 1. State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti
(2004)
πΉ Facts:
The accused created a fake email ID of a woman and circulated obscene emails with her photos to defame her.
π§Ύ Judgment:
The court convicted the accused under Section 66 IT Act and Sections 500, 501 IPC.
Held that circulation of obscene content with intent to harass and defame amounts to a criminal offence.
Emphasized the right to privacy and dignity.
β Importance:
First landmark conviction related to online harassment and misuse of technology for circulating obscene content.
βοΈ 2. State of Kerala v. Rakesh K.
(2018) KHC
πΉ Facts:
The accused circulated a private video of a woman after breakup.
π§Ύ Judgment:
Held guilty under Section 66E IT Act and Section 354C IPC (Voyeurism).
Court recognized the trauma and violation of privacy caused by such acts.
Sentenced the accused to imprisonment.
β Importance:
Strengthened interpretation of Section 66E for protecting privacy and dignity.
βοΈ 3. Avnish Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi)
(2005) 6 SCC 666
πΉ Facts:
Founder of a website was charged for hosting obscene content uploaded by users.
π§Ύ Judgment:
Supreme Court held that intermediaries are liable only if they fail to remove unlawful content after notice.
Emphasized due diligence and intermediary liability.
Set standards for hosting platforms in regulating obscene or non-consensual content.
β Importance:
Addresses platform responsibility in revenge porn circulation cases.
βοΈ 4. The State of Telangana v. Sai Krishna Reddy
(2017) (High Court)
πΉ Facts:
Accused circulated intimate pictures of a woman without consent.
π§Ύ Judgment:
Court held that sharing intimate images without consent violates Sections 66E and 67 of IT Act and amounts to criminal offence under IPC.
Recognized serious impact on victimβs mental health and dignity.
Directed police to act swiftly.
β Importance:
Recognized circulation as a form of sexual harassment and privacy violation.
βοΈ 5. Indira Jaising v. Union of India
(2017) Writ Petition
πΉ Facts:
Public interest litigation demanding stronger laws against revenge porn and cyber harassment of women.
π§Ύ Judgment:
Court urged Parliament to consider stronger legislation protecting victims of revenge porn.
Directed police and authorities to sensitize about cyber harassment.
Led to more stringent enforcement of IT Act provisions.
β Importance:
Catalyst for policy reform and sensitization on cybercrimes against women.
βοΈ 6. XYZ v. State of NCT of Delhi
(2020)
πΉ Facts:
An ex-boyfriend circulated private photos of the complainant on social media.
π§Ύ Judgment:
Delhi High Court awarded compensation to the victim under Section 357 of CrPC.
Held accused guilty under Sections 66E and 354C IPC.
Highlighted importance of victim compensation and relief in revenge porn cases.
β Importance:
Recognizes the need for compensation for victims and strict punishment.
βοΈ 7. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India
(2015) 5 SCC 1
πΉ Facts:
Challenge to Section 66A IT Act (criminalizing offensive online speech, which was often misused).
π§Ύ Judgment:
Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional for being vague and overbroad.
However, left intact Sections 66E and 67, which are relevant for revenge porn.
Clarified that online speech causing harassment through non-consensual images is punishable.
β Importance:
Maintained laws protecting victims of cyber harassment but protected free speech.
π Summary of Legal Approach in Revenge Porn Cases
| Aspect | Legal Position |
|---|---|
| Privacy Violation | Section 66E IT Act: Punishable with imprisonment up to 3 years or fine |
| Obscene Material Circulation | Section 67 IT Act: Punishment up to 5 years |
| Voyeurism | Section 354C IPC: Imprisonment up to 3 years and fine |
| Harassment of Women | Section 509 IPC |
| Platform Liability | Intermediaries liable only if they fail to act on notice |
| Compensation | Courts may order compensation under CrPC Section 357 |
π Conclusion
Revenge porn circulation is a serious offence against privacy, dignity, and mental health of victims. Indian courts have:
Upheld strict interpretation of IT Act provisions protecting privacy.
Recognized the psychological harm and trauma caused.
Held offenders criminally liable with imprisonment and fines.
Emphasized intermediary responsibility and need for victim compensation.
Called for greater awareness and stronger laws against cyber harassment.
RELATED Blog
0 comments