Introduction:
In a landmark development that reinforces the constitutional right to privacy in the digital era, the Madras High Court in X v. Union of India (W.P. No. 25017 of 2025, decided on 22 October 2025) closed a petition filed by a young woman lawyer seeking the removal of her intimate photos and videos that had been uploaded online by her former partner without her consent. The Court, presided over by Justice M. Dhandapani, took cognizance of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) submitted by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), outlining the process and mechanisms for curtailing the spread of Non-Consensual Intimate Imagery (NCII) content online. This case is significant not only for its sensitivity to the victim’s plight but also for the establishment of a systemic framework ensuring prompt redressal for victims of online sexual abuse and privacy violations. The petitioner, represented by Senior Counsel Mr. Abdu Kumar Rajaratnam, sought judicial intervention to compel the Central Government to act upon her representation for blocking and removing the non-consensual intimate content. Earlier, the Court had directed the Ministry to remove the content within 48 hours and explain the procedure available to victims in such cases. In response, the Ministry submitted a comprehensive SOP delineating the roles of One Stop Centres (OSCs), Intermediaries, the National Cybercrime Reporting Portal (NCRP), and Law Enforcement Agencies, thereby creating a multi-layered support mechanism for victims.
Arguments of the Petitioner:
The petitioner, a young woman advocate, approached the Madras High Court after her former partner uploaded her intimate photos and videos on various online platforms without her consent. Represented by Senior Counsel Mr. Abdu Kumar Rajaratnam, she contended that such dissemination of private content amounted to a gross violation of her fundamental right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as well as her dignity and personal autonomy. The petitioner argued that non-consensual publication of intimate imagery not only causes irreparable psychological trauma but also has long-lasting social and professional consequences, especially for women in the legal profession.
She submitted that despite filing representations to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) and other authorities, no timely or effective action was taken to remove the said content from digital platforms. This, she contended, reflected systemic gaps in the mechanism for responding to online gender-based violence and privacy breaches. The petitioner argued that victims of Non-Consensual Intimate Imagery (NCII) are often left helpless, as the takedown process is fragmented, time-consuming, and lacks centralized accountability. Therefore, she prayed for judicial intervention to direct the Ministry to establish a clear, enforceable framework for the immediate removal of such unlawful content and to ensure compliance by intermediaries such as social media platforms, web hosts, and search engines.
Further, the petitioner highlighted that Rule 3(1)(b)(ii) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, already imposes an obligation on intermediaries to remove such content within 24 hours upon receiving a complaint. However, due to the absence of a uniform procedural mechanism and coordination between agencies, victims continue to suffer. She urged the Court to direct the Government to institutionalize a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to address such violations swiftly and compassionately. The petitioner also sought directions to ensure psychological and legal support to victims, contending that victims of NCII experience severe mental distress and social ostracism, necessitating an integrated support system.
In conclusion, the petitioner’s counsel emphasized that the proliferation of digital platforms has amplified the ease with which private content can be misused, making it imperative for the Government to act decisively to protect citizens’ digital dignity. The petitioner argued that her case was not merely an individual grievance but one that exposed a lacuna in the cyber-regulatory ecosystem, demanding judicial directions to strengthen institutional safeguards for victims of online sexual exploitation.
Arguments of the Respondents:
On behalf of the Union of India, Mr. A. Kumaraguru, Special Panel Counsel, and Mr. E. Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing with Mr. S. Balaji, Government Advocate (Criminal Side), submitted that the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) had taken serious cognizance of the issue and had already framed a comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to address the removal of non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII) content. The respondents informed the Court that the SOP was formulated after consultations with multiple stakeholders, including intermediaries, cybercrime authorities, and women’s welfare institutions, to ensure a prompt and coordinated response mechanism.
The respondents submitted that the newly established SOP provided victims with multiple avenues to report such incidents, ensuring that no individual is left without recourse. The SOP allows victims to approach One Stop Centres (OSCs), Intermediaries, National Cybercrime Reporting Portal (NCRP), or Law Enforcement Agencies, depending on their convenience and accessibility. The respondents explained that One Stop Centres will assist victims in filing complaints on the NCRP portal, provide legal and psychological counselling, and facilitate access to the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) for legal representation.
Further, the respondents elaborated that intermediaries, including Significant Social Media Intermediaries (SSMIs) such as Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube, are mandated under the IT Rules, 2021, to remove or disable access to such offensive content within 24 hours of receiving a complaint. They are also required to deploy crawler technology or similar tools to detect and prevent the re-uploading of the same or similar content across other platforms. Moreover, intermediaries must acknowledge complaints, deindex such content from search results, and periodically inform the complainant about the actions taken.
The Government further stated that the National Cybercrime Reporting Portal (NCRP) functions as a central platform where victims can report incidents of cyber abuse, including non-consensual imagery, and the portal coordinates with law enforcement agencies to ensure swift action. Under the SOP, the NCRP can issue notices for expeditious takedown of such content under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, read with Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021. The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) has also been directed to coordinate with internet service providers (ISPs) to block URLs or links that host such material, based on references received from appropriate government agencies.
The respondents emphasized that the Government’s approach is victim-centric, designed to ensure speed, sensitivity, and confidentiality in handling such complaints. They argued that with the SOP now in place, victims like the petitioner can avail of a structured mechanism to have their private content removed swiftly while receiving emotional and legal support. Therefore, the respondents urged the Court to close the writ petition, as the petitioner’s concerns had been addressed comprehensively through the newly introduced SOP, which institutionalizes the process of combating online sexual privacy violations in compliance with constitutional and statutory mandates.
Court’s Judgment:
Justice M. Dhandapani, after hearing both sides and examining the SOP submitted by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, noted that the Central Government had taken substantial steps toward addressing the petitioner’s grievances. The Court observed that the Ministry had fulfilled the Court’s earlier directive by creating a detailed framework to guide victims of Non-Consensual Intimate Imagery (NCII) content on the steps to be taken for redressal. The Court appreciated the proactive efforts of the Ministry in establishing a victim-oriented, multi-agency system that enables individuals to report and remove non-consensual content in an efficient and sensitive manner.
The Court noted that the SOP effectively operationalizes the statutory mandate under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act and Rules 3 and 4 of the IT Rules, 2021, by ensuring that intermediaries, including significant social media platforms, are accountable for removing offending content within a prescribed timeframe. It acknowledged that the SOP offers a clear roadmap for victims, enabling them to approach One Stop Centres, Intermediaries, or the NCRP directly, depending on their circumstances. The Court emphasized that such accessibility is crucial in ensuring victims, particularly women, are not re-victimized through bureaucratic hurdles or technological complexities.
Justice Dhandapani underscored that the right to privacy and digital dignity is a fundamental component of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, as recognized in landmark judgments such as Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017). He observed that the dissemination of intimate imagery without consent constitutes a grave violation of this right and causes deep emotional and reputational harm. The Court remarked that in the age of social media, where digital footprints are permanent and viral spread is instantaneous, the State bears an enhanced duty to protect individuals from technology-enabled abuse.
The Court also recognized the importance of psychological support and counselling for victims of such crimes. It praised the SOP’s provision mandating One Stop Centres to provide legal and psychological assistance, and its emphasis on coordination with District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs) for ensuring legal aid to victims who may wish to pursue criminal proceedings against offenders. Justice Dhandapani noted that the SOP balances the need for speed with due process, ensuring that intermediaries act responsibly while upholding users’ fundamental rights.
Finally, having satisfied itself that an effective and enforceable mechanism was now in place, the Court directed the petitioner to approach the appropriate authorities under the SOP for the removal of any existing or future uploads of her intimate content. The Court therefore closed the writ petition, observing that the petitioner now has sufficient legal recourse under the SOP and statutory framework. Before parting with the matter, the Court commended the Ministry for creating a model victim-support system that could serve as a blueprint for combating online gender-based violence and safeguarding digital privacy in India.
Through this judgment, the Madras High Court not only upheld the petitioner’s right to privacy but also reinforced the constitutional principle that digital spaces must not become instruments of humiliation or exploitation. The Court’s intervention has catalyzed the institutionalization of a robust and victim-centric process to prevent the spread of non-consensual intimate content, marking a crucial milestone in the evolution of India’s cyber jurisprudence.