Madras High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioner, a practicing advocate before this Court and the District Judiciary, under Article 226 of the Constitution directing Respondent 1 to act upon the representation made by her dated 18-6-2025 by taking all appropriate measures to detect, remove, and block all content depicting her non-consensual intimate images and videos (‘NCII’) which were being shared over the Internet/digital platforms, to ensure the effective removal of such content and to prevent its further dissemination on digital platforms in present and future. N. Anand Venkatesh J. held that the right to privacy and dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution were being violated every second in the present case and thus, directed for removal of advocate’s NCII within 48 hours.
Background
The advocate during her college days, had an intimate love affair with a person who promised to marry her. Later, the said person started sexually assaulting her repeatedly and filmed their physical intimacy without her knowledge and transmitted the same on digital platforms. She came to know about the same when one of her friends informed her and aggrieved by the same, on 1-4-2025, an FIR was registered for various offences under Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) and Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’) and under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998. The criminal case was pending investigation.
The illegally recorded video depicting the advocate in a vulnerable state had been transmitted across more than 70 websites and various other digital platforms. The videos were now repeatedly shared, downloaded and re-uploaded on pornographic websites, social media platforms like Twitter and in other social media sites under various accounts, channels and pages. The distribution and transmission of the video reached such an extent that the advocate was subjected to scrutiny about the video and its contents by various individuals including her clients and peers in the same profession. The advocate had been publicly shamed and was being ostracised by the people who were getting a different impression of her. Thus, she lost her normal life, her dignity was bartered, and she was in a completely helpless state.
Analysis and Decision
Considering the duty of a Constitutional Court to safeguard the fundamental rights that were guaranteed to all persons and not limited to just citizens when it came to gross violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court observed that the right to privacy and right to dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution was being violated every second insofar as the advocate was concerned.
The Court relied on X v. Union of India, (2023) 3 HCC (Del) 63, wherein the Delhi High Court tried to find a solution for the threatening problem, like in the present case, faced by young girls across the country. The Court opined that the said exercise must be followed up by the respondent since it was the State’s duty to safeguard the fundamental rights of its citizens..
The Court thus directed the respondent to take immediate measures, within 48 hours, to block/remove/issue take down notices/issue directions to all intermediaries/websites/pornographic platforms/telecommunication service providers concerned to forthwith detect, remove and block all content depicting the advocate’s NCII which were being uploaded, shared, re-uploaded, transmitted or distributed over the Internet/digital platforms and ensure the effective removal of such content and prevent its further dissemination on any Internet/digital platform at present or in the future.
[X v. Union of India, WP No. 25017 of 2025, decided on 9-7-2025]
*Judgment by Justice N. Anand Venkatesh
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Abudu Kumar Rajaratnam, Senior Counsel for Rajagopal Vasudevan
For the Respondents: A. Kumaraguru, Senior Panel Counsel for R1 and V. Meganathan, Government Advocate for R2
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
