Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 20266

The prosecutrix alleged that the accused had induced her into a physical relationship on the promise of marriage.

During their relationship, the accused allegedly recorded an intimate video of the woman on his mobile phone.

The accused later disclosed the existence of the recording to the woman and assured her that the video would be deleted.

After disputes arose between them, the accused allegedly threatened to upload the intimate video on Facebook if she continued contacting him.

The prosecutrix also alleged emotional manipulation and pressure during her pregnancies.

The Trial Court acquitted the accused of offences under Sections 376 IPC, 493 IPC, and 354C IPC.

However, the accused was convicted under Section 506 Part II IPC for criminal intimidation involving threat to impute unchastity to a woman.

The Madras High Court affirmed the conviction.

The accused thereafter approached the Supreme Court challenging the conviction.

One of the major issues raised before the Court was that the alleged mobile phone containing the video was never recovered during investigation.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the accused.

The Court referred to the Constitution Bench judgment in Joseph Shine v. Union of India while discussing the modern understanding of dignity and sexual autonomy.

The bench observed that traditional notions of chastity were rooted in patriarchal assumptions controlling women’s sexuality.

The Court held that modern constitutional jurisprudence requires “unchastity” to be interpreted from the perspective of privacy, dignity, decisional autonomy, and sexual self-determination.

The Supreme Court observed that consensual sexual activity is part of an individual’s private sphere deserving constitutional protection under Article 21.

The bench held that threatening to circulate intimate content online interferes with a woman’s autonomy over her private sexual life and therefore amounts to imputing unchastity.

The Court further noted that in the digital age, dignity and reputation are intrinsically linked to online identity and privacy.

The Supreme Court rejected the argument that non-recovery of the mobile phone was fatal to the prosecution case.

The Court clarified that recovery of the device is not a sine qua non for conviction if credible oral and testimonial evidence establishes the offence.

Relying upon the testimony of the prosecutrix and corroborative statements of her sisters, the Court held that the prosecution had proved the threat beyond reasonable doubt.

However, considering that the incident occurred in 2015, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the accused.

The Court also discharged the bail bonds and sureties of the appellant.

The judgment is a progressive and constitutionally significant ruling on digital privacy and women’s sexual autonomy.

The Supreme Court modernized the interpretation of “unchastity” by moving away from patriarchal morality-based notions.

By linking sexual autonomy with dignity and privacy under Article 21, the Court expanded constitutional protections available to women in the digital era.

The ruling acknowledges the severe harm caused by threats involving circulation of intimate content online.

The judgment is important because it recognizes that reputational harm today extends beyond physical society into the digital ecosystem.

The Court correctly emphasized that control over one’s private sexual information forms part of decisional autonomy and dignity.

The ruling also clarifies evidentiary principles in cyber-related offences by holding that non-recovery of a digital device is not automatically fatal.

By accepting credible oral evidence, the Court ensured that technical investigative gaps do not defeat genuine cases involving digital intimidation.

The judgment may significantly influence future prosecutions involving revenge pornography, cyber intimidation, and online privacy violations.

Overall, the ruling strengthens constitutional jurisprudence relating to privacy, dignity, and protection of women against digital exploitation.