Threat to Leak Nude Video Attracts IPC Section 506: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that secretly recording a woman while she is bathing and threatening to upload the video on social media amounts to imputing "unchastity" to her, as such an act interferes with her sexual autonomy, dignity and privacy.

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh said any reprehensible act that seeks to lower or tarnish a woman's dignity by violating her sexual autonomy and identity can amount to imputing unchastity within the meaning of Part II of Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) [corresponding to Section 351 (3) of the BNS].

Upholding the conviction of one Vijaykumar for criminal intimidation under the provision, Court, however, reduced his sentence from three years' imprisonment to the period already undergone, noting that the incident dated back to 2015.

The Bench observed that the mere threat of uploading a woman's nude video on social media is "quite a distressing and frightening proposition" for any woman.

"If acute shame, distress, and embarrassment are visited upon a woman due to fear that her nude picture would be displayed to the public, such an act would certainly be a cause for alarm, which is what Section 503 of the IPC speaks of and to that extent, the ingredient for the offence under the first part of Section 503 of the IPC is clearly made out," Court said.

Also Read | When Does Section 506 IPC Apply? Supreme Court Explains Criminal Intimidation Standard

It further held that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy while disrobing in a bathroom. Any threat to publish such images would violate her privacy, dignity and sexual autonomy.

"Such a video would amount to transgressing her sexual autonomy, undermining her dignity, invading her cherished privacy, and insulting her sexual character," the Bench observed.

How did the Supreme Court interpret 'chastity' and 'unchastity'?

Court said the meaning of "chastity" cannot be determined solely by traditional societal values. Instead, it must also be understood through a woman's own perception of her sexuality and her constitutional right to make personal choices.

"Chastity of a woman should be understood as a person's control over their own sexual choices, in light of freedom of self-determination. It is the ability to determine one's own sexual choices and one's own sexual relationships without interference from another. It would encompass the ability to freely decide who to establish a sexual relationship with on their own terms without any undue pressure or interference," the Bench said.

Court stressed that "unchastity" should also be understood as any act that interferes with the privacy and autonomy of a person's consensual sexual life.

"Any such interference would be a violation of the constitutional understanding of both privacy and dignity under Article 21. Any unwarranted interference with such sexual autonomy can be said to impute unchastity, insofar as it prevents the affected person from controlling the information and choices that she chooses to make with respect to her sexual life. Such a reading protects the dignity of all persons, regardless of their sexual history," it observed.

Also Read| Allahabad HC stays Coercive Action Against Man Booked for WhatsApp ‘Threat’ to Chandrashekhar Azad

The Bench further clarified that chastity should no longer be viewed through the lens of traditional patriarchal morality.

"Chastity is not to be considered purely from a moral perspective focused on virtue alone; it has to be seen from the prism of dignity and autonomy of the individual woman to decide her sexual preferences and habits," Court said.

Court also noted that even though the video did not depict a conventional sexual act, secretly recording a naked woman and threatening to circulate the footage online is a grave violation in the digital age, where such content can be manipulated and widely circulated to damage her dignity, reputation and autonomy.

Relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019), which decriminalised adultery, the court observed that traditional notions of chastity were rooted in patriarchal control over women's sexuality. It said the expression "unchastity" must now be interpreted in line with constitutional values of privacy, dignity and sexual self-determination.

Background of the case

The case arose from a complaint lodged by a woman at the All Women Police Station in Gingee, Tamil Nadu, in 2015. She alleged that she had been in a relationship with the accused for two years, during which he secretly recorded her while she was bathing.

After their relationship turned sour, the accused allegedly threatened to upload the video on Facebook.

The trial court at Villupuram acquitted him of rape and other charges but convicted him under Section 506 Part II IPC for criminal intimidation. The Madras High Court, by its judgment dated February 28, 2024, upheld the conviction, following which the accused approached the Supreme Court.

Rejecting one of the appellant's key arguments, the Supreme Court held that the non-recovery of the mobile phone containing the video was not fatal to the prosecution's case. It said the woman's testimony, corroborated by her sisters, was credible and sufficient to establish the offence.

Case Title: Vijaykumar Vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Inspector of Police

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh

Date of Judgment: May 22, 2026