Humane Judicial Approach To Revenge Porn In India

In a welcome development, the Madras High Court in the case of X. v. Union of India^[3] is attempting to develop a standard operating procedure to handle cases of revenge porn technically called Non-Consensual Intimate Imagery (NCII).

The Existing Law

Globally, revenge porn is understood as “non-consensual pornography, without the consent of the individuals in the images, by either an ex-partner who obtained such content in the course of a prior relationship or by any other person, with the intention of shaming and humiliating or harming the victim, as revenge for ending such relationship or to damage the victim's day to day life.”^[4]

However in India, Revenge Porn/NCII does not find any explicit mention in existing laws be it the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”) or even the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (“IT Rules”).

Rule 3(2)(b) of the IT Rules somewhat defines NCII as any content which prima facie exposes the private area of any individual/shows such individual in full or partial nudity/shows or depicts such individual in any sexual act or conduct/is in the nature of impersonation in an electronic form, including artificially morphed images. However, Rule 3(2)(b) is not a charging offence.

The available provision is Section 66E of the IT Act which prescribes punishment of imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine not exceeding two lakhs, or with both for violation of privacy of an individual by intentionally or knowingly captures, publishes or transmits the image of a private area of any person without his or her consent.

Section 67 of the IT Act provides punishment for publishing or transmitting of obscene material in electronic form any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons. Section 67A of the IT Act provides for punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form. Section 67B of the IT Act provides for punishment for publishing or transmitting of material depicting children in sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form.

Furthermore, Section 294 of the BNS also inter alia prohibits the distribution, public exhibition or in any manner circulation of any obscene object whatsoever in whatever manner.

Judicial Decisions So Far

In 2018, a judicial magistrate in West Bengal in State of West Bengal v. Animesh Boxi^[5] sentenced the accused for uploading private pictures of the victim which was to be then the first conviction in a 'revenge porn' case in India. The accused was punished with five years of imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 9000 for publishing and sharing private images and clips of ex-partner without her consent after she ended the relationship with him.

Indian Courts have been dealing with such cases from time to time. The Orissa High Court in Subhranshu Rout v. State of Odisha^[6] at the time of rejecting the bail of the accused focused on the impact of the content on the victim. Despite removal of the content by the accused after police intervention, it continued to be circulated online. The Court highlighted the right of the victim to be forgotten which was a dimension of the victim's fundamental right of privacy.

The Supreme Court in a suo-moto case titled Videos of Sexual Violence and Recommendations, In re,^[7], directed the government to consult with intermediaries to formulate guidelines pertaining to circulation child pornography, rape etc. However, the issue of revenge porn/NCII was not addressed at that point.

For the first time, in X v. Union of India^[8] , the Delhi High Court attempted to address the problem of re-uploading of known NCII by stipulating that all intermediaries must engage in the proactive monitoring and removal of NCII that the court had previously determined to be illegal.

In another case, the Delhi High Court^[9] after recognizing the absence of any collaboration between the intermediaries and the government has issued certain directions and recommendations to the Intermediaries, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY), as well as the Delhi Police (“Guidelines”). These guidelines have now also been endorsed by the Karnataka High Court in M Moser Design Associates v State of Karnataka^[10] which inter alia includes sensitization of the authorities involved, prompt registration of formal complaints by the police, round-the-clock helpline for reporting such instances and strict adherence to timeframe stipulated in Rule 3, IT Rules.

Developments in the Madras High Court Case

The case before the Madras High Court involved a female advocate who filed a writ petition seeking removal of all content depicting her NCII which were being disseminated on the internet after being uploaded by her partner who had surreptitiously filmed their intimate moments without her consent. By its order dated 09 July 2025, the Court directed the authorities to ensure removal of the said content and posted the case for compliance. However, before the hearing on 15 July 2025, the said content had again resurfaced on 39 websites which is pretty common in cases such as these where such content continues to re-surface like a weed in a free digital space.

The Court realized that the present case requires continuous monitoring as it does not confine itself only to the problem faced by the petitioner herein, but the problems faced by countless victims across the country. It has now decided to expand the scope of the case to develop a standard operating procedure, making the removal of the said content a test case which can be applied in future to handle the situation more effectively.

By its order dated 09.07.2025, the Madras High Court has now endorsed and directed MEITY to enforce the Guidelines. But the decision goes beyond such guidelines and processes, as it attempts to humanize the process in view of the societal framework where not all victims will complain to the police, and many are going to silently suffer the consequences.

Recognizing that the internet never sleeps, and the internet never forgets, the Court highlighted the importance of not naming the victim in the FIR and other public documents so as to allow the victim to remain anonymous and retain their dignity and rightly directed the redaction of the name of the victim in the present case from all documents. This is in line with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena and Another v. Union of India^[11], whereby the Court called for non-disclosure of the identity of the victim in all cases involving sexual offences against women.

The Court also came down heavily upon the Tamil Nadu police for the gross insensitivity with which they handled the case. Not only did the police cause damage to the girl's reputation by mentioning her name in the FIR but as submitted by the victim, she was made to sit with male police officers as they viewed the videos. The Court expressed shock over this and highlighted the mental agony that such shaming and repeated harassment would have caused to the victim. The Court called for greater sensitivity in dealing with cases of such nature and directed that in such cases the victim must be attended to by women police officers.^[12]

Consequently, the Tamil Nadu Police has now come out with a circular memorandum dated 13.07.2025 with instructions to the police officers as to how they should handle cases relating to obscenity and NCII.^[13]

Additionally, the Home Ministry has now come back with proposed frameworks – particularly, the Central Scheme for Combating Cybercrime (2025-2028) and the SURAKSHINI initiative to strengthen redressal mechanisms for NCII and other online harms. It has also come back with a press release emphasizing the necessity for every city to appoint a Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) to safeguard data and systems against cyber threats.^[14]

In a refreshing step, the Court has also called attention to the toll that handling such cases takes on mental health of designated officers such as CISOs. The Court remarked, 'What will this do to his mental health? An officer whose only job from morning to evening is to sift through objectionable content. It can impact his mental well-being too. It is like judges constantly handling family court cases—the mind either breaks down or becomes desensitized.'^[15]

On 05.08.2025, the Union Government informed the Madras High Court that in compliance with the Court's directions, the Union Government has set up a committee to create standard operating procedure ("SOP") for NCII. The Committee would be composed of six experts including representatives from the ministries of home affairs, women and child development, telecommunications and MeitY. The joint secretary of MeitY will head the panel which also includes cyber law experts and nodal officers from the participating ministries

It has already been seen that officers dealing with POCSO and matrimonial disputes experience significant mental health challenges due to the sensitive and emotionally taxing nature of these cases. The constant exposure to graphic details can lead to vicarious trauma, compassion fatigue, and burnout. To have a compassionate view not only towards the victims but towards the officers handling these cases is a welcome step.