The Madras High Court criticised the Centre for making a woman cybercrime victim watch objectionable videos with seven male officers. “Does it not amount to violating her right to dignity?” the court asked while directing corrective action.
The Madras High Court instructed the Centre to establish a straightforward mechanism enabling women to remove their private images and videos from the internet and digital platforms if they had been uploaded without consent by malicious individuals, all while protecting their identities.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh tasked senior central government counsel A. Kumaraguru with developing a prototype after consulting with the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) regarding the appointment of a nodal officer for addressing grievances.
These directives arose from a writ petition filed by a female advocate, whose ex-partner had recorded their private moments without her knowledge and shared them on social media. The petitioner expressed distress as her images and videos had appeared on numerous pornographic sites, causing her significant anguish.
Senior counsel Abudu Kumar Rajaratnam informed the judge that, although MeitY had complied with an interim order issued by him last week to block the websites featuring her client’s images, those sites had re-emerged and continued to display the same content.
The judge noted the challenge posed by technically adept criminals on the internet, stating that while technology exists to prevent such re-emergence, “the inclination to put it to use for the benefit of the common man” is what is truly needed.
Justice Venkatesh commented on the disparity in response, saying the system operates effectively to remove traces from the internet if the victim is a daughter of a Minister or a judge, but lacks the same urgency when the victims are ordinary citizens without influential connections.
He emphasized that technologies like photo DNA tracing should be utilized effectively so that women do not suffer in silence due to the increasing sharing of their private images and videos or threats of public exposure.
The judge also criticized the police for disclosing the name of the woman advocate in the First Information Report (FIR) against her former partner based on her complaint. He questioned the police’s insensitivity in revealing her identity in a public document.
He ordered the police to promptly redact her name from the FIR and expressed strong disapproval of the police department for making the victim view her private images and videos with seven male officers to identify the perpetrator.
The judge asked,
“Don’t you have women police personnel well versed in cyber crime? Can’t you ask those women personnel to deal with such cases? How can you make the victim sit along with seven male police personnel to watch those videos? Does it not amount to violating her right to dignity?”
Stressing the need for sensitivity in investigations involving crimes against women, the judge insisted that State Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohamed Jinnah appear at the next hearing to ensure that proper directives are given to the police department.