E-Paper
‘Form system to remove non-consensual online images’, Madras HC says
The Madras HC urged the Union government to create a victim-friendly system for women to remove non-consensual private content online, emphasizing sensitivity and tech use.
The Madras high court on Tuesday directed the Union government to come up with a “simplified, victim-friendly mechanism” for women to get their private images and videos, uploaded online without their consent, “removed” from digital platforms without compromising their identity.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh issued the direction while hearing a petition filed by a woman whose former partner allegedly recorded their private moments without her knowledge and circulated them online. The petitioner, an advocate, submitted that the content was widely shared on pornographic websites, messaging apps and social media platforms, causing her immense psychological trauma.
Expressing grave concern, justice Venkatesh asked central government’s counsel, advocate A Kumaraguru, to secure instructions from the ministry of electronics and information technology (MeitY) and the ministry of home affairs (MHA) on appointing a nodal officer for grievance redressal mechanism for such cases, and on establishing a “prototype system to address such complaints efficiently”.
“Technology is always there. What is required is the inclination to put it to use for the benefit of the common man,” justice Venkatesh said, adding that authorities spring into action only when the victim is someone “powerful”.
Senior counsel Abudu Kumar Rajaratnam, appearing for the petitioner, told the court that while MeitY complied with the court’s interim directive last week to block sites carrying the woman’s videos, the material reappeared on multiple platforms.
Justice Venkatesh then stressed the need to deploy tools such as “PhotoDNA” and “AI based” technology to prevent the reuploading of such content and ensure women do not have to “suffer silently”.
The judge also pulled up the Tamil Nadu police for their “insensitivity” in handling the case.
Justice Venkatesh questioned how the woman’s name had been mentioned in the FIR and why she had been made to sit with several male police officers and watch the private videos to identify the accused.
“Don’t you have women police personnel trained in cybercrime? How can you make the victim sit with seven men to watch those videos? Does it not amount to violating her right to dignity?” justice Venkatesh asked.
The judge directed the police to immediately redact the woman’s name from the FIR and insisted that state public prosecutor Hasan Mohamed Jinnah appear at the next hearing to ensure the police department receives appropriate instructions on dealing sensitively with survivors of sexual abuse.
Justice Venkatesh said investigations into crimes against women must be conducted with the “utmost care and humanity”, especially in the digital age where the “threat of online abuse is pervasive and persistent”.
During a previous hearing on July 9, the court directed MeitY to remove and block all non-consensual private content related to the petitioner within 48 hours. At the time, the court also impleaded the director general of state police as a respondent party to the case.
The petitioner initially approached MeitY with a representation on June 18, requesting the ministry to issue instructions to intermediaries and service providers to deploy existing technologies to take down her videos. She, however, told the court she did not receive any response from the ministry.
During the July 9 hearing, justice Venkatesh also said he intended to meet the woman in his chambers to offer courage and solidarity. “I thought to myself, what if she were my daughter? I must prepare myself and make sure I do not break down during the interaction,” he said.
On Tuesday, the judge observed that the victim in the present case was able to fight because she was a lawyer and had institutional support. “What happens to the silent sufferers who cannot gather the courage to fight?” the court observed.
