Morphed Image Is Calculated Assault On Woman's Privacy And Reputation, Law Must Move Swiftly: Madras High Court

“The dignity of a woman cannot be left at the mercy of a fake profile. A morphed image is not a harmless digital prank. It is a calculated assault on privacy, reputation and emotional security. The law must therefore move with the same speed with which the unlawful content travels,” the court noted.

Justice Victoria Gowri thus directed the police to conduct immediate verification and register an FIR with respect to a complaint regarding the morphing of a woman's photos. The court held that just because the woman was in Singapore, where she was employed, her physical absence should not dilute the duty of Indian Law enforcement agencies.

The court observed that complaints of this nature cannot be taken as a mere private dispute. The court observed that online sexual harassment, morphing, creation of fake profiles, etc was a serious intrusion into the bodily privacy and the constitutional protection of life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“In matters of this nature, the Court cannot treat the grievance as a mere private dispute. Online sexual humiliation, morphing, creation of fake profiles, threat of further circulation and demand of money for deletion of such content constitute, if true, a serious intrusion into bodily privacy, decisional dignity, reputation and the constitutional protection of life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the court said.

The court was hearing a plea by the brother of a woman who was working as a housekeeper in Singapore. The brother informed the court that his sister's photographs were being morphed and obscene photos and videos were being circulated online through Instagram and other social media accounts.

The brother also submitted that the men who were involved in creating the morphed image also demanded money for deleting the morphed photographs and videos and upon refusal, continued to circulate it. It was submitted that though complaints were lodged before the police and the District Collector, no action had been taken till date, prompting him to approach the High Court seeking directions to the police to take necessary action.

The State submitted that the complaint filed by the brother would be duly considered, verified and the digital materials would be examined and appropriate action would be taken in accordance with the BNSS and the IT Act. The State also assured the court that if the complaint discloses a cognisable offence, an FIR will be registered and the investigation will be proceeded with in accordance with law.

The court noted that in cyber offences, delay was fatal to the evidence. The court added that digital footprints were fragile and that prompt preservation of digital evidence is not a mere procedure but part of substantive justice.

The court also remarked that though it does not conduct a roving enquiry into the truth of a complaint in a plea for mandamus, when the complaint before the court prima facie disclosed serious cognisable offences, the court could use its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to ensure that the statutory authority performs its duty.

The court thus submitted that the police should act with promptitude and not mechanically close the complaint as a petition enquiry. The court directed the police to take immediate steps to preserve the offending URLs/accounts, obtain relevant subscriber details, IP logs, device details and other electronic records from the concerned intermediaries/service providers.

The court also added that if the offending material was available online, the police should take steps to remove/block it through competent authority in accordance with law. the court also suggested that the statement of the victim could be taken through video conferencing if necessary.

The court asked the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District to monitor the progress of the investigation and asked the investigation to be completed as expeditiously as possible, within 4 weeks.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. P. Manikandan

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. D. Rajaboopathy, Counsel for State of TN (Crl. side)

Case Title: R Ramesh Kumar v The Superintendent of Police and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 283

Case No: WP Crl (MD) No 2027 of 2026