Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while rejecting the bail plea of an accused in a rape case, emphasized that consent cannot be misused for exploitation.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court stating that consent for sexual relations does not include permission to capture private moments or share them on social media.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while rejecting the bail plea of an accused in a rape case, emphasized that consent cannot be misused for exploitation.
“Even if the consent for sexual relations had been given at any point in time by the complainant, such consent cannot, in any manner, be construed as consent to capture and post her inappropriate videos on social media platforms. Consent to engage in physical relations does not extend to the misuse or exploitation of a person’s private moments or their depiction in an inappropriate and derogatory manner,” the court remarked in its January 17 verdict.
Background of the Case
The accused claimed that the case came to light after a “long friendly relationship” that turned sour after the complainant allegedly failed to repay a loan he had given her. However, the court refused to accept this argument and denied him bail.
The court stated, “While the first sexual encounter may have been consensual, the subsequent ones were allegedly based on blackmail, with the accused taking advantage of the videos to exert control over the complainant. The accused’s actions in preparing the videos and using them to manipulate and sexually exploit the complainant prima-facie reflects a strategy of abuse and exploitation, transcending any initial consensual interaction.”
The court noted that the accused appeared to have exploited the complainant by using their relationship and a loan transaction as a pretext. However, it firmly stated that such arrangements, even between friends, do not justify exploiting someone’s vulnerability or dignity.
It said, “It prima facie appeared that the accused had exploited his relationship under the guise of a loan transaction but such an arrangement — even between friends — did not entitle one party to exploit the other’s vulnerability or dignity.”
The accused tried to argue that the complainant, being married, was mature enough to understand her actions. The court rejected this argument, calling it an “attempt to weaponise” her marital status and professional background to diminish the seriousness of the allegations.
“An attempt to weaponise her marital status and professional background to diminish the gravity of the allegations was unacceptable,” the court stated.
Additionally, it highlighted that the complainant’s profession as a massage parlour employee could not be used to trivialize the alleged crimes.
“The mere fact that the complainant worked in a massage parlour could not be used to diminish the seriousness of the alleged offences committed against her when there was no evidence of her engaging in illicit or unlawful activities,” it observed.
According to the complainant, she was lured by the accused, who lent her Rs. 3.5 lakh for enrolling in a course. Later, he began blackmailing her to meet his sexual demands. By the end of 2023, the accused came to Delhi, showed her an objectionable video on his phone, and forced her into sexual acts over two days, threatening to release the videos publicly.
The complainant alleged that the accused shared the objectionable content on social media platforms such as Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram.
Referring to the accused’s conduct, the court said, “The alleged subsequent acts of the accused were clearly rooted in coercion and blackmail.”
Justice Sharma’s ruling reiterates the principle that no one has the right to misuse another person’s consent or exploit their private moments. The verdict serves as a strong message against blackmail, coercion, and the unauthorized sharing of intimate content.
Case Title: SUDHIR KUMAR v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI
