The High Court of Karnataka has rejected a plea seeking to quash criminal proceedings against five individuals accused of circulating an obscene video using the photograph and Instagram profile of a college lecturer. In a significant ruling, the Court emphasized that uploading personal photographs to social media for legitimate social purposes does not constitute implied consent for those images to be misappropriated, edited into indecent content, or circulated across messaging platforms. Justice Suraj Govindaraj underscored that the dignity and privacy of individuals must be shielded from such unauthorized digital misuse.

The case originated from a complaint lodged in March 2020 by a lecturer at St. Philomina College in Puttur. The complainant alleged that unknown individuals had accessed her Instagram account, harvested her photographs, and subsequently shared them within a WhatsApp group ironically titled "Bad Boys." According to the complaint, these images were combined with an obscene video, creating a false association that implied the lecturer was the individual featured in the explicit material. The complainant further alleged that her contact details and Instagram handle were distributed alongside these files, leading to a barrage of unwanted and harassing messages. Following a lengthy investigation, a charge sheet was filed against five men under Section 66(C) of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 , which pertains to identity theft , and Section 67 of the same Act , which prohibits the publishing or transmission of obscene material in electronic form.

Forensic Findings and the Allegation of Identity Misuse

During the hearing, the petitioners argued that the photographs used in the circulation were distinct from the person depicted in the obscene video, contending that the prosecution lacked sufficient evidence to link the complainant to the indecent material. They sought to have the entire criminal proceeding quashed, asserting that the allegations did not satisfy the essential ingredients required to establish offenses under the IT Act.

To address these contentions, the Court directed the state to produce forensic evidence , specifically focusing on the identity of the person in the video. The prosecution provided the Court with multiple forensic reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) in Bengaluru. One report detailed the extraction of digital data from a mobile phone, confirming the existence of files with identical prefixes for both the images and the video files in question. A separate report noted that, while the facility could not perform an exhaustive analysis of all image editing due to technical constraints, a visual inspection and a system-generated facial feature comparison indicated a clear similarity between the complainant’s photograph and the individual seen in the contested video content.

Justice Govindaraj observed that these forensic documents, while noting some limitations, provided enough evidentiary support to warrant a full trial. The Court specifically rejected the petitioners' attempt to utilize Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as a tool to conduct a " mini-trial ." The bench noted, "This Court cannot undertake a detailed examination of the forensic material or decide the disputed question of identity in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ."

Defining the Legal Boundary of Social Media Consent

The legal reasoning centered on the fundamental right to privacy and the protection of individuals against digital harassment. The Court drew a sharp distinction between public availability and authorization for reuse. While a user may choose to make their account public, the Court affirmed that this openness serves specific social or professional functions and does not grant third parties the right to manipulate or exploit that content.

The ruling articulates a firm stance on how the law perceives digital content that links a person’s identity to prurient material. According to the Court, "A photograph posted by a person on a social media account for ordinary and legitimate purposes cannot be treated as consent to its use in obscene material or to the circulation of such material among others." This observation is intended to curb the growing trend of "morphing" or "doxxing" where individuals, particularly women, are targeted through the public misuse of their personal profiles.

The judgment further elaborated that the gravity of the offense is heightened when the victim's contact information is shared alongside explicit content, as it serves to invite harassment and public humiliation. The Court held, "The use of a publicly available photograph does not, by itself, authorise another person to misuse it, create an obscene or indecent video by associating it with the photograph, or circulate the resulting material along with the woman's identity and contact details."

By dismissing the petition, the High Court has allowed the criminal proceedings in the trial court at Puttur to continue. The accused will now face trial to determine their specific roles in the circulation of the material, the nature of the video, and the intent behind the identification theft. The Court clarified that its order, while refusing to intervene at this preliminary stage, does not express an opinion on the final guilt or innocence of the accused, leaving that determination to be made by the trial judge based on the evidence presented in court. The matter remains pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC in Puttur , where the prosecution will now proceed to prove the charges brought forward in the charge sheet .