Recently, the Madras High Court, while dealing with a disturbing case of non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII), took strong exception to the failure of authorities in preventing the repeated circulation of such content. The Court directed the Central Government and police machinery to adopt real-time, tech-enabled solutions and emphasized that cases involving a woman's bodily autonomy and privacy demand nothing short of utmost institutional sensitivity. Observing that “courts cannot remain mute spectators” in the face of such digital abuse, the Court stressed the need for a coordinated national response.
Brief Facts:
A young woman approached the Court after intimate images and videos of her, initially blocked through legal intervention, resurfaced on multiple online platforms. Despite earlier steps by law enforcement and internet service providers, the content kept reappearing, intensifying her trauma. The petitioner sought judicial directions for a stronger enforcement mechanism that could permanently block and prevent further circulation of such content.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner’s senior counsel urged the Court to move beyond outdated takedown practices. Relying on previous rulings of the Delhi and Karnataka High Courts, counsel argued that without deploying advanced tools such as PhotoDNA, Hash Matching Technology, and platforms like StopNCII.org, any attempt to stop re-upload of such content would remain inadequate.
It was submitted that the Internet, while being a tool of empowerment, had become a space of exploitation when used without robust checks. The counsel also drew attention to earlier judicial pronouncements which had strongly indicted the apathy of authorities in NCII cases, highlighting that both the State and intermediaries had a joint constitutional and legal duty to protect the dignity of victims.
Observations of the Court:
Taking note of the recurring uploads despite judicial orders, the Court expressed deep concern at the systemic failure in protecting victims of NCII. It observed, “This is a societal menace. Courts cannot remain mute spectators when the dignity and privacy of women are being digitally assaulted time and again.”
The Court referenced a recent circular issued by the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, which outlined a comprehensive protocol for police officers handling complaints of NCII and online obscenity. These protocols included helping victims submit takedown requests to platforms, use grievance redressal tools, and report abuse via mechanisms like Google’s Personal Information Removal Tool and StopNCII.org.
However, the Court was shocked by the manner in which the police handled the present case. It observed that, “The name of the victim was mentioned in the FIR, and male officers viewed the video in the victim’s presence, this shows a gross lack of sensitivity and causes repeated humiliation and mental agony to the victim.”
The Court emphasized that such cases must be handled only by trained women police officers, particularly those with cybercrime expertise, and that victims must never be subjected to further trauma during investigation.
The Court further directed, “The name of the victim must be redacted from the FIR and all investigation documents. Under no circumstances should her identity be revealed.”
The decision of the Court:
The Court directed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Department of Telecommunications, and all concerned authorities to mandatorily deploy real-time detection technologies and proactively block offending content, in line with the directions previously laid down by the Delhi and Karnataka High Courts.
Terming this matter a “test case” for future handling of NCII complaints, the Court asked the authorities to file an affidavit detailing a prototype victim redressal process that ensures confidentiality, dignity, and effective takedown. The matter has been posted for further hearing on July 22, 2025.
Case Title: X vs. The Union Of India & Ors.
Case No.: WP No. 25017 of 2025
Coram: Justice N. Anand Venkatesh
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Abudu Kumar Rajaratnam (Senior Counsel)
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. A.Kumaraguru, V.Meganathan
Picture Source :
