[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mohan Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:13550) on 19 March, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:13550]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                                 JODHPUR

               S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1152/2026

Mohan Ram S/o Harji Ram, Aged About 43 Years, C-41, Thakur
Virender Nagar, Mandor Road, Police Station-Mandor, Jodhpur,
District-Jodhpur Rajasthan, Pin-342304.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
         Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat,
         Jaipur
2.       The Commissioner Of Police, Jodhpur City, Rajasthan.
3.       The Station House Officer Sho, Police Station Mandor,
         District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4.       Meta Platforms, Inc (Instagram), Through Its Resident
         Grievance Officer/nodal Officer In India, Address 216,
         Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase Iii, New Delhi - 110020.
                                                                 ----Respondents



For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Rajak Khan
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. TC Sharma for UOI, Central
                                Government


                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

REPORTABLE 19/03/2026 INTRODUCTION

1. By way of the instant Criminal Writ Petition preferred under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as

the "COI"), the Petitioner seeks issuance of appropriate directions

for the protection and enforcement of the fundamental rights

guaranteed under Article 21 of the COI, inter alia, for removal of

(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 11:14:31 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13550] (2 of 12) [CRLW-1152/2026]

the objectionable and obscene content and for deactivation of the

offending social media account(s).

1.1 This Court on the previous occasion has supplied the copy of

the writ petition to learned counsel Mr. B.P. Bohra who usually

appears on behalf of the Union of India.

RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE

2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that the petitioner,

father of the victim, has approached this Court aggrieved by the

malicious circulation of obscene and private images of his son on a

social media platform, with the intent to tarnish the dignity and

reputation of the family. Despite a prompt complaint lodged before

the jurisdictional police seeking registration of an FIR, no effective

action has ensued and the objectionable content continues to

remain in circulation. In such compelling circumstances, the

petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court

seeking immediate intervention.

OBSERVATION OF THIS COURT

3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner and learned counsel Mr. T.C. Sharma who has appeared

before this Court on behalf of the UOI.

(a) Right to Privacy: A Fundamental Right

4. This Court is conscious of the fact that the dissemination of

such private and intimate images strikes at the very core of a

constitutionally protected guarantee, namely, the right to privacy.

This right inheres in every individual as a natural and inalienable

facet of life and personal liberty, encompassing the entitlement "to

(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 11:14:31 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13550] (3 of 12) [CRLW-1152/2026]

be let alone" and to exercise dominion over one's personal sphere,

including bodily integrity, informational self-determination, and

decisional autonomy, free from any unwarranted intrusion either

by private actors or by the State.

4.1 It would be apposite to start with the judgment passed by

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Justice K.S.

Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (Writ Petition (Civil) No.

494 of 2012), decided on 24.08.2017, in which it has been

unequivocally held that the right to privacy is an intrinsic and

inseparable part of Article 21 of the COI. The said pronouncement

lucidly expounds that the right to life is not confined to mere

animal existence, but embraces within its fold the right to live with

dignity, autonomy, and the freedom to make intimate personal

choices. Privacy, therefore, constitutes the very foundation upon

which the edifice of dignity stands. The aforesaid enunciation

leaves no manner of doubt that any unauthorized dissemination of

intimate content not only violates the sanctity of the individual's

private sphere but also results in a continuing and aggravated

infraction of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of

COI.

4.2 From a bare perusal of the material available on record, it is

evident that the impugned acts are prima facie invasive, unlawful,

and have the effect of causing irreparable injury to the dignity,

reputation, and mental well-being of the aggrieved individual.

Such acts cannot be countenanced in a constitutional democracy

governed by the rule of law.

(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 11:14:31 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13550] (4 of 12) [CRLW-1152/2026]

(b) Statutory Application: IT vis-à-vis Right to Privacy

5. At this stage, it is necessary to advert to the statutory

obligations cast upon intermediaries under Rule 3(2) of the

Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital

Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (hereinafter to be referred as "IT

Rules 2021"). For the sake of clarity, the said provision is

reproduced hereinbelow: -

3. (1) Due diligence by an intermediary: An intermediary, including [a social media intermediary, a significant social media intermediary and an online gaming intermediary], shall observe the following due diligence while discharging its duties, namely: -

(b) the intermediary shall inform its rules and regulations, privacy policy and user agreement to the user in English or any language specified in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution in the language of his choice and shall make reasonable efforts 1[by itself, and to cause the users of its computer resource to not host], display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, store, update or share any information that, --

(i) belongs to another person and to which the user does not have any right;

(ii) is obscene, pornographic, paedophilic, invasive of another's privacy including bodily privacy, insulting or harassing on the basis of gender, racially or ethnically objectionable, relating or encouraging money laundering or gambling, [or an online game that causes user harm,] or promoting enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion or caste with the intent to incite violence;

5.1 A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it abundantly

clear that the law imposes a positive and continuing obligation

upon intermediaries, particularly social media platforms, to act

with a heightened sense of responsibility while operating in the

digital domain. It is discernible that such intermediaries are

required to place before their users, a language understandable to

(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 11:14:31 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13550] (5 of 12) [CRLW-1152/2026]

them, the governing framework of their platform, including the

conditions of use and the manner in which user data and conduct

shall be regulated. This requirement is intended to ensure that the

user is not left in obscurity as regards the permissible limits of

engagement on such platforms.

5.2 More importantly, the rule casts a duty upon the

intermediary to take all reasonable measures to prevent the

misuse of its platform. The intermediary cannot remain a silent

spectator but is expected to actively discourage and restrict the

dissemination of content which is unlawful or injurious in nature.

5.3 The scope of such objectionable content, as can be gathered,

extends to material over which the user has no lawful entitlement,

content that offends decency or morality, invades the privacy of

individuals, or tends to harass or demean persons on

impermissible grounds. It further encompasses content which may

facilitate unlawful activities or disturb societal harmony by

fostering hostility between different sections of the community.

Thus, what emerges is that the intermediary is placed under a

statutory obligation not only to inform but also to regulate, so as

to ensure that its platform does not become a vehicle for illegality,

indignity, or social discord.

6. It is trite that intermediaries are afforded conditional

immunity under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act,

2000 (hereinafter referred to as the "IT Act"), a principle

commonly understood as the doctrine of "safe harbour". However,

(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 11:14:31 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13550] (6 of 12) [CRLW-1152/2026]

such immunity is neither absolute nor unqualified; rather, it is

hedged with statutory obligations requiring the intermediary to

observe due diligence and to act with promptitude upon acquiring

actual knowledge of unlawful content. The legislative scheme

makes it abundantly clear that an intermediary cannot remain a

mute spectator once illegality is brought to its notice. Any failure,

delay, or lack of diligence in removing or disabling access to such

content would result in the forfeiture of the statutory protection,

thereby exposing the intermediary to legal consequences. In the

present digital age, where social media platforms act as powerful

tools for instantaneous dissemination, the unauthorized circulation

of private, intimate, or obscene content assumes grave

proportions. Such acts not only cause irreparable harm to the

reputation and dignity of an individual but also constitute a serious

invasion of privacy. The moment such unlawful content is brought

to the notice of the intermediary, whether through a complaint,

representation, or otherwise, it is incumbent upon the platform to

act expeditiously and take all necessary measures to remove,

block, or disable access to the offending material. Any inaction or

delayed response on the part of the intermediary, in such sensitive

matters, would amount to a failure in discharging the due

diligence obligations cast upon it under the IT Act. This Court

cannot be oblivious to the fact that continued availability of such

private content on digital platforms perpetuates harm with every

passing moment, magnifying the injury to the victim. Therefore,

an intermediary, upon gaining knowledge, is duty-bound to act

(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 11:14:31 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13550] (7 of 12) [CRLW-1152/2026]

swiftly and responsibly, failing which it cannot be permitted to

seek refuge under the doctrine of safe harbour and must bear the

legal consequences of such omission.

(d) Doctrine of Right to be Forgotten

7. Closely intertwined with the right to privacy is the doctrine of

the right to be forgotten, which has been recognized as an

emerging facet of informational privacy. The said doctrine enables

an individual to seek erasure, removal, or delinking of personal

data which is no longer necessary or which unjustifiably infringes

upon one's privacy and dignity. In cases of the present nature,

where intimate content is disseminated without consent, the

continued availability of such material serves no legitimate public

interest and, on the contrary, perpetuates harm. Thus, the

invocation of the right to be forgotten becomes not only justified

but imperative to secure the ends of justice.

(e) Preservation of Digital Evidence

8. At the same time, this Court remains acutely conscious of

the imperative need to preserve digital evidence in its pristine

form. In the contemporary digital ecosystem, where incriminating

material may be altered, deleted, or rendered inaccessible with

remarkable ease, the preservation of electronic records assumes

paramount significance for the purposes of investigation and trial.

Therefore, while issuing directions for removal, takedown, or

disabling access to the offending content, this Court deems it

equally necessary to ensure that the underlying data, including

metadata, access logs, registration details, IP records, and all

(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 11:14:31 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13550] (8 of 12) [CRLW-1152/2026]

other relevant electronic footprints, are securely preserved by the

concerned intermediaries. It is apposite to note that electronic

records are recognized as admissible evidence under the

provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, particularly Sections

65A and 65B, which lay down the manner in which such electronic

evidence is to be proved. Any failure to preserve such data at the

relevant stage may irreversibly prejudice the course of justice by

rendering crucial evidence unavailable or unreliable. Furthermore,

the evidentiary value of such material is intrinsically linked with its

integrity and authenticity, which can only be ensured through

timely and secure preservation. This Court also takes cognizance

of the statutory obligations cast upon intermediaries under the IT

Act and the rules framed thereunder, which mandate due diligence

and cooperation with law enforcement agencies. Preservation of

data, even after disabling public access, forms an integral part of

such due diligence and is indispensable for enabling investigating

authorities to trace the origin, dissemination, and intent behind

the offending content. Accordingly, any direction for removal or

blocking of such content must necessarily be coupled with a

corresponding obligation upon the intermediaries to retain and

preserve the said data for a reasonable period, or till the

culmination of investigation and trial, whichever is later. This dual

approach ensures that while the fundamental rights of the

aggrieved individual, including the right to privacy and dignity, are

adequately protected, the larger interest of criminal justice

administration is not compromised. Such a calibrated balance

(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 11:14:31 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13550] (9 of 12) [CRLW-1152/2026]

between immediate remedial action and evidentiary preservation

is not only desirable but essential to uphold the rule of law in an

increasingly digital society.

(f) Enduring Digital Scars and the Multifold Civil

Consequences of Non-Consensual Dissemination

9. This Court cannot remain oblivious to the grave and far-

reaching consequences that ensue from the unauthorized

dissemination of private and intimate images or videos. The injury

occasioned by such acts is not transient; rather, it leaves behind

what may aptly be described as an enduring digital scar, a

permanent imprint upon the life, dignity, and identity of the

victim, which continues to resurface with every access, share, or

circulation of such content. Looking into the attendant

circumstances and the nature of digital dissemination, it is evident

that the harm is not confined to the moment of initial publication.

The digital ecosystem ensures that such content, once released,

acquires a life of its own, rendering its complete erasure

exceedingly difficult, if not impossible. The consequences,

therefore, are continuous, compounding, and deeply invasive.

9.1 Firstly, the psychological and emotional toll upon the victim is

profound. The individual is often subjected to severe mental

trauma, anxiety, depression, and a persistent sense of fear and

helplessness. The violation of privacy, particularly of an intimate

nature, strikes at the core of one's self-worth and dignity, often

resulting in long-lasting psychological scars.

(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 11:14:31 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13550] (10 of 12) [CRLW-1152/2026]

9.2 Secondly, the social ramifications are equally devastating. In a

society where perceptions and reputations continue to hold

significant weight, the circulation of such material frequently leads

to stigma, ostracization, and loss of social standing. The victim

may be subjected to unwarranted judgment, ridicule, and moral

policing, thereby eroding their standing within the community. It is

also a matter of common knowledge, and this Court takes judicial

notice of the same, that in many instances, the impact

disproportionately affects women. The dissemination of such

content often has a direct bearing upon their dignity, societal

respect, and future prospects, including matrimonial alliances. The

societal mindset, unfortunately, continues to attach stigma to the

victim rather than the perpetrator, thereby compounding the

injustice. At the same time, it would be fallacious to assume that

such consequences are confined to one gender alone. The

deleterious effects of such dissemination extend to any individual,

irrespective of gender, affecting their personal relationships,

professional opportunities, and overall standing in society. The

erosion of trust, damage to reputation, and the constant

apprehension of re-circulation of such material create an

environment of perpetual distress.

9.3 Thirdly, the professional and economic consequences cannot

be understated. The victim may suffer loss of employment

opportunities, damage to career prospects, and professional

alienation, particularly in an age where digital footprints are

frequently scrutinized.

(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 11:14:31 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13550] (11 of 12) [CRLW-1152/2026]

9.4 Fourthly, the concept of a "digital scar" assumes even greater

significance in the context of the right to be forgotten. The

inability to fully erase such content results in a continuing

violation, where the victim is repeatedly subjected to the same

harm, thereby converting a singular act into a perpetual wrong.

9.5 Lastly, such acts have a chilling effect on the exercise of

fundamental freedoms. The fear of misuse of personal data and

intimate content may deter individuals from freely expressing

themselves or engaging in digital spaces, thereby undermining the

very fabric of a free and open society.

CONCLUSION

10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion

that the dissemination of private and intimate content without

consent is not merely a legal wrong but a profound invasion of

dignity with cascading and irreversible consequences. The law,

therefore, must respond with sensitivity, urgency, and firmness so

as to adequately protect the individual from such enduring harm

and to uphold the constitutional promise of a dignified existence.

VERDICT AND DIRECTIONS

11. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, and having

regard to the nature and gravity of the violation of the

fundamental right to privacy, this Court deems it appropriate to

issue certain directions in the interest of justice:-

(a) The Union of India shall forthwith take cognizance of the

present matter and ensure immediate and effective coordination

with the concerned intermediary, namely Meta Platforms,

(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 11:14:31 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13550] (12 of 12) [CRLW-1152/2026]

particularly its platform Instagram, for the purpose of permanent

removal of all obscene and private photographs and videos

pertaining to the petitioner's son, which have been unlawfully

circulated on the said platform.

(b) It is further directed that, upon due verification, if the

offending account bearing handle "@suresh_bishnoi_688" is found

to be responsible for dissemination of such unlawful content, the

intermediary shall take immediate steps to deactivate and

permanently suspend the said account, in accordance with law.