Delhi High Court: Consent for Sex Doesn’t Mean Consent to Post Private Videos Online

Share & spread the love

The Delhi High Court has ruled that consent for sexual relations does not automatically mean consent to record, misuse, or share private moments on social media platforms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made this observation while denying bail to a man accused of raping and blackmailing a woman by posting inappropriate videos of her on WhatsApp, Instagram, and Facebook.

Court’s Observations in Sudhir Kumar v. The State NCT of Delhi

The accused argued that the sexual relationship was consensual; however, the Court emphasised that even if the complainant had consented to sexual relations, it did not extend to allowing the accused to capture or share her private videos.

“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 stated.

The Court in Sudhir Kumar v. The State NCT of Delhi further noted that if the relationship initially began consensually, the accused’s subsequent actions of coercion and blackmail turned it into exploitation.

“The accused’s actions in preparing the videos and using them to manipulate and sexually exploit the complainant prima-facie reflect a strategy of abuse and exploitation,” the Court added.

Case Background

The complainant, a married woman, became acquainted with the accused through phone conversations. The accused later provided her with a ₹3.5 lakh loan for a beautician course. The complainant alleged that the accused began blackmailing her into sexual relations and secretly recorded compromising videos via WhatsApp video calls.

The accused allegedly circulated these videos in the complainant’s native village and shared morphed images of her daughter and other female relatives on social media, falsely labeling them as involved in illicit activities. This led to the complainant receiving unsolicited calls and public humiliation.

Accused’s Defense and Court’s Rejection

The accused denied the allegations, claiming that their relationship turned sour after the complainant struggled to repay the loan. However, the Court rejected his bail plea, considering the grave nature of the charges.

“Once the accused had recorded the complainant’s inappropriate videos without her consent, these videos became tools of manipulation and control,” the Court observed.

The Court ruled that any subsequent sexual encounters were non-consensual, as they were conducted under duress and the threat of reputational harm.

Defamation and Work-Related Prejudice

The Court in Sudhir Kumar v. The State NCT strongly condemned the accused’s attempt to discredit the complainant by citing her employment at a massage parlor.

“The mere fact of the complainant working in a massage parlour – absent any evidence of her being engaged in illicit or unlawful activities – cannot be used to undermine or mitigate the seriousness of the alleged offences,” the Court clarified.

Legal Representation

  • For the Accused: Advocate Sumit Kumar
  • For the State: Additional Public Prosecutor Raj Kumar

Attention all law students!

Are you tired of missing out on internship, job opportunities and law notes?

Well, fear no more! With 1+ lakhs students already on board, you don't want to be left behind. Be a part of the biggest legal community around!

Join our WhatsApp Groups (Click Here) and Telegram Channel (Click Here) and get instant notifications.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

LawBhoomi
Upgrad