SC upholds conviction for threatening to share woman’s private bathing video
New Delhi, May 23: The Supreme Court has delivered a significant ruling on women’s dignity, privacy and sexual autonomy, holding that the…
New Delhi, May 23: The Supreme Court has delivered a significant ruling on women’s dignity, privacy and sexual autonomy, holding that the concept of “unchastity” under criminal law must be interpreted in line with modern constitutional values rather than outdated patriarchal notions.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh upheld the conviction of a man under Part II of Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for threatening to upload a woman’s private bathing video on Facebook.
The Court ruled that such an act amounts to “imputing unchastity” to a woman and falls within the ambit of criminal intimidation under the IPC.
Threat to Leak Private Video Violates Dignity and Privacy
The Court observed that secretly recording a woman while bathing and threatening to circulate the footage online directly violates her dignity, privacy and sexual autonomy.
“It is natural that a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy when disrobing in a bathroom, and any publication of images depicting nakedness taken in the bathroom would violate the privacy and dignity of the individual and thus sully her chastity,” the Bench observed.
The judges added that even if the video did not depict a sexual act in the conventional sense, publishing or threatening to publish such content online would still amount to attacking a woman’s dignity and sexual character.
‘Unchastity’ Cannot Be Viewed Through Patriarchal Morality
The Supreme Court said the understanding of “unchastity” has undergone a major shift in constitutional jurisprudence.
Traditionally, the term was linked to notions of female virtue and sexual behaviour. However, the Court clarified that in modern law, chastity must be understood from the perspective of individual dignity, privacy and decisional autonomy protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.
“Chastity is not to be considered purely from a moral perspective focused on virtue alone; it has to be seen from the prism of dignity and autonomy of the individual woman to decide her sexual preferences and habits,” the Court observed.
The Bench also noted that in the digital age, possession and circulation of intimate content can expose women to severe vulnerability and reputational harm.
Supreme Court Cites Digital Privacy Concerns
The Court highlighted that in the era of social media and the internet, online reputation is deeply connected to an individual’s dignity and identity.
It observed that unauthorised circulation of private content violates the constitutional right to privacy and can damage a woman’s reputation and autonomy.
“In the age of the internet, the dignity of a person is intrinsically tied to their person and reputation as perceived online,” the Court stated.
The judgment referred to the landmark Joseph Shine vs Union of India verdict, which had struck down the adultery law and rejected patriarchal control over women’s sexuality.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a 2015 complaint filed at the All Women Police Station in Gingee, Tamil Nadu.
The complainant alleged that the accused, with whom she had been in a relationship for nearly two years, secretly recorded her while she was bathing by leaving a mobile phone camera switched on inside the bathroom.
According to the prosecution, the accused later threatened to upload the video on Facebook following disputes between them.
The woman also alleged that the accused had induced her into a physical relationship on the promise of marriage.
Conviction Upheld Despite Non-Recovery of Mobile Phone
One of the major issues before the Supreme Court was that the mobile phone allegedly containing the video was never recovered during the investigation.
However, the Court held that recovery of the device was not mandatory if credible oral evidence existed to establish the offence.
“Non-recovery of the same will not be fatal to the prosecution case if there is other credible evidence to prove the existence of such object of crime/material,” the Court observed.
Relying on the testimony of the complainant and corroborative statements by her sisters, the Bench held that the prosecution had proved the criminal intimidation charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sentence Reduced Due to Passage of Time
While dismissing the appeal and upholding the conviction, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the accused, noting that the incident dated back to 2015.
The Court also ordered that the bail bond and surety of the appellant stand discharged.
