Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, Madras High Court
Victims Must Be Given Safe, Anonymous Way To Remove Intimate Content Online: Madras High Court Orders MeitY To Create A Prototype
|A woman advocate filed the petition, citing gaps in current victim support systems.
The Madras High Court has directed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to outline a clear and accessible procedure for victims particularly women whose intimate photos or videos have been uploaded online without their consent.
A petition was filed by a young woman advocate, emphasized that the current legal and enforcement mechanisms may not be sufficient or accessible for many victims.
A Bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh held, “There shall be a direction to the 1st respondent to file an affidavit before this Court by explaining the various steps that have been initiated and give a prototype as to what a victim girl must do when she is faced with a situation like this. Considering the societal frame work, not all girls are going to give complaint to the police and many are going to silently suffer the consequences. Therefore, they must be shown a way as to how they can handle a problem of this nature without getting themselves exposed and by providing an easy method to remove such videos / intimate images from the websites. If such clear directions are given, such girls can also approach the Self Help Groups or NGO, who can help in resolving the problems.”
Background
The Court was addressing a writ petition filed by a woman advocate, who alleged that her private, intimate images and videos were uploaded online by her former partner without her consent. The woman had earlier approached the authorities, seeking action for the immediate removal of the content from all websites and social media platforms.
On a prior hearing, the Court had directed MeitY to ensure takedown of the objectionable content within 48 hours. In response, the Standing Counsel for the Ministry submitted that complete control over the circulation of such material was challenging unless entire websites hosting the content were blocked.
Acknowledging the seriousness of the issue, the Court then ordered MeitY to block the entire websites hosting the images/videos of the petitioner, and to take proactive steps to block any other platform where such content might resurface in the future.
Arguments
At the latest hearing, the Senior Panel Counsel representing the Ministry informed the Court that efforts had been made to block all identified websites. He also submitted written instructions from the Home Ministry detailing the steps taken in such cases.
However, the petitioner’s counsel reported that the objectionable content had resurfaced on 39 different websites, showing the inadequacy of current controls. The counsel also referred to measures previously discussed by the Delhi High Court in a similar case, suggesting that a consistent nationwide mechanism is needed.
Findings
The Madras High Court agreed that the matter requires continuous monitoring, given the scale and frequency of such incidents, and noted that this is not an isolated case but one that affects many women across the country. The Court thus directed the Ministry to list specific actions a victim can take and incorporate them into the prototype.
The Court strongly criticized the conduct of the state police in their handling of the case. It was appalled to learn that the victim had been forced to watch the explicit videos in the presence of seven male police officers to identify the accused.
The Court added, “In a case of this nature, the victim girl must be accompanied only by women police officers and there are many such women police officers, who are experts in cyber crimes. This is the reason why this Court wants to inculcate more sensitivity in the police department while dealing with cases of this nature.”
The Court also expressed serious concern that the police had named the victim in the First Information Report (FIR) and related documents, thereby directed, “This Court directs the learned Government Advocate that the name of the victim girl must be redacted from the FIR and from all those documents where it has been incorporated in the course of investigation. In no place, the name of the victim girl must be shown.”
Cause Title: X v. The Union of India & Anr.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Abudu Kumar Rajaratnam, Advocate Rajagopal Vasudevan
Respondents: Senior Panel Counsel A.Kumaraguru, Advocate V.Meganathan