Madras HC Calls Morphed Images a Serious Attack on Privacy, Orders Police Action [Read Order]

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has directed police authorities in Dindigul district to verify and act upon a complaint alleging that a woman's photographs were morphed into obscene images and videos and circulated on social media, with the accused allegedly demanding money for their removal.

Justice L. Victoria Gowri was hearing a writ petition filed by the woman's brother seeking a direction to the police to take necessary action on his complaint dated 20.03.2026, after he claimed no effective steps had been taken despite approaching the police and the District Collector.

According to the petitioner, his sister, who is employed as a housekeeper in Singapore, had her photographs morphed into obscene and nude images and videos, which were created and circulated through Instagram and other social media accounts. The petitioner alleged that the persons responsible demanded money for deleting the content and, upon refusal, continued to upload and circulate it. He further alleged that despite informing the accused's family and lodging complaints with the police and the District Collector, no effective action had been taken.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that the allegations attracted offences under Sections 66C, 66D, 66E, 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as well as provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 relating to sexual harassment, stalking, insult to the modesty of a woman, criminal intimidation and extortion. It was argued that since the victim was outside India and her family was vulnerable, immediate steps were required not merely to register a case but also to preserve digital evidence, freeze the offending accounts, secure subscriber details and prevent further circulation of the content.

The Government Advocate appearing for the police submitted that the complaint would be examined in accordance with law, and that an FIR would be registered if the materials disclosed a cognizable offence.

The court observed that allegations of this nature could not be treated as a private or family dispute, noting that “online sexual humiliation, morphing, creation of fake profiles, threat of further circulation and demand of money for deletion of such content constitute, if true, a serious intrusion into bodily privacy, decisional dignity, reputation and the constitutional protection of life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

Addressing the argument that the victim resided abroad, the court held that her physical absence from India could not dilute the duty of the investigating agency, since the complainant, the family members, the accused and the digital footprint were all connected to the territorial jurisdiction of the respondent police. The court also emphasised that in cyber offences, delay is often fatal to evidence, as URLs may disappear, accounts may be deleted and IP logs may be overwritten, making prompt preservation of digital evidence a matter of substantive justice rather than mere procedure.

While clarifying that it was not conducting a roving enquiry into the truth of the allegations, the court held that where a complaint prima facie discloses serious cognizable offences, its jurisdiction under Article 226 can be exercised to ensure that the police perform their statutory duty.

In a strongly worded observation on the gravity of such offences, the court stated that “the dignity of a woman cannot be left at the mercy of a fake profile. A morphed image is not a harmless digital prank. It is a calculated assault on privacy, reputation and emotional security.”

Disposing of the writ petition, the court issued a series of directions to the second respondent. The police were directed to verify the complaint and the materials furnished by the petitioner, and to register an FIR forthwith under the appropriate provisions of the IT Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, if a cognizable offence was disclosed. The police were further directed to secure all available digital materials from the petitioner, including screenshots, URLs, account details, call records and evidence of the demand for money, and to take immediate steps to preserve electronic evidence such as IP logs and subscriber information from the concerned platforms.

The court also directed that if the offending content was found to be available online, steps should be taken for its removal or blocking through the competent authority, and that the statements of the petitioner and, if feasible, the victim, should be recorded through appropriate lawful means, including video conferencing or consular channels. The Superintendent of Police was directed to monitor the progress of the investigation given the vulnerability of the victim and her family, with the entire exercise to be completed preferably within four weeks.

The court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations against the private respondents, and that the investigation was to proceed independently, fairly and strictly in accordance with law.

Case Title: R.Ramesh Kumar vs. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District & Ors.

[Read Order]