India's Supreme Court affirms that threatening to post a private bathing video on social media constitutes criminal intimidation, protecting a woman's privacy and dignity.
Key Points
- Supreme Court says threatening to post a bathing video online is criminal intimidation.
- The court upheld the conviction of a man for threatening to upload a woman's private video on Facebook.
- The court stated that recording and threatening to upload a naked bathing video can be construed as a threat to impute unchastity.
- Non-recovery of the mobile phone or video is not fatal to a conviction for criminal intimidation.
- Individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy when disrobing in a bathroom, and publishing such images violates their dignity.
The Supreme Court on Friday said threatening to publish on social media a video of a woman disrobing or bathing constitutes a threat to "impute unchastity" and is an offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Bathing Video Case
A bench of justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh made the observation while upholding the conviction of a man under Part II of Section 506 of the IPC for threatening to upload a woman's private bathing video on Facebook.
"We are of the opinion that in the light of the changed perspective of women's sexuality, the act of video-recording the victim in a naked state while she was taking a bath and the threat to upload it on digital social media can be construed to be an act amounting to a threat to impute unchastity within the meaning of Part II of Section 506 IPC," the bench said.
Non-Recovery of Video Not Fatal to Conviction
The top court said non-recovery of a mobile phone or the video material in question is not fatal to a conviction for criminal intimidation under Section 506.
"Law does not mandate that recovery of an article of crime is sine qua non for conviction of an offence, though production of the same would strengthen the prosecution case. Non-recovery of the same will not be fatal to the prosecution case if there are other credible evidence to prove the existence of such object of crime/material, and it would," the bench said.
Privacy and Dignity Concerns
Referring to the case details, the apex court said a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy when disrobing in a bathroom, and any publication of images violate the privacy and dignity of the individual and thus sully her chastity.
"Therefore, there can be no doubt that such a video as is alleged to exist and the making of a threat to upload it on Facebook would reasonably be considered to impute unchastity to the prosecutrix by publication, as it would amount to transgressing her sexual autonomy, undermining her dignity, invading her cherished privacy, and insulting her sexual character, even though they may in a relationship for such relationship would not end on any right to bring in public domain," the court said.
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution case, a complaint was lodged by the woman alleging that the accused established a sexual relationship with her on a promise of marriage, which later turned out to be false.
She also alleged that the accused threatened her with uploading a video on social media of her taking a bath, which was allegedly recorded by him.
After the investigation was completed, the man was charged with committing offences of rape and sexual intercourse by deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage, and criminal intimidation with intent to impute unchastity to the victim.
On conclusion of the trial, the man was acquitted of all charges but was found guilty of the charge under Part II of Section 506 of the IPC, which refers to aggravated criminal intimidation.
© 2026