Supreme Court Expands Meaning Of 'Unchastity', Says Threat To Leak Woman's Bathing Video Punishable Under S.506 IPC

In a significant ruling on women's dignity, privacy, and sexual autonomy, the Supreme Court has held that the concept of "unchastity" under criminal law must be understood in light of modern constitutional values, and not through outdated moral frameworks.

The Court made the observation while upholding the conviction of a man under Part II of Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code for threatening to upload a woman's private bathing video on Facebook, holding that such conduct amounts to “imputing unchastity” to a woman within the meaning of the provision which penalises criminal intimidation.

“…the act of video-recording the victim in a naked state while she was taking a bath and the threat to upload it on digital social media can be construed to be an act amounting to a threat to impute unchastity within the meaning of Part II of Section 506 IPC.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh.

“It is natural that a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy when disrobing in a bathroom, and any publication of images depicting nakedness taken in the bathroom would violate the privacy and dignity of the individual and thus sully her chastity. Therefore, there can be no doubt that such a video as is alleged to exist and the making of a threat to upload it on Facebook would reasonably be considered to impute unchastity to the prosecutrix by publication, as it would amount to transgressing her sexual autonomy, undermining her dignity, invading her cherished privacy, and insulting her sexual character, even though they may in a relationship for such relationship would not end on any right to bring in public domain.”, the Court added.

Unchastity must be understood not in the light of patriarchal morality

The Court held that the concept of “unchastity” can no longer be viewed through outdated patriarchal notions of morality and must instead be understood from the standpoint of dignity, privacy, and sexual autonomy protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. Traditionally, unchastity would involve casting aspersions on the woman's virtue and modesty, particularly with reference to her sexual behaviour and conduct. However, there has been a pradigm shift in understanding the concept of chastity in the context of a woman's dignity and autonomy.

“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,” the Court observed.

The Court noted that even if the alleged video did not depict a sexual act in the conventional sense, the recording of a woman in a naked state and the threat to publish it online directly invades her privacy, dignity, and sexual autonomy.

The Court observed that in today's context, such conduct can reasonably be treated as imputing unchastity to a woman within the meaning of Section 506 Part II IPC.

“There can be no doubt that what is alleged to have been video-recorded is not any particular act or activity of the prosecutrix involving a sexual act, so as to impute unchastity under the traditional notion of chastity. However, while it may not be a scene that involves overtly sexual acts, recording of a woman in a naked condition in the modern context can create heightened vulnerability in the digital world. Such a content in the possession of another person can immediately be warped and altered to create sexual connotations in a manner where the victim will not be in a condition to control the narrative around it.”, the Court observed.

Background

The case arose out of a complaint lodged in 2015 before the All Women Police Station, Gingee, Tamil Nadu. The prosecutrix alleged that she had been in a relationship with the appellant for nearly two years. During this period, the appellant allegedly recorded a video of her while she was taking a bath by secretly leaving a mobile phone camera switched on inside the bathroom.

According to the prosecution, the appellant later disclosed the recording to her and assured her that the video would be deleted. However, after disputes arose between them, he allegedly threatened to upload the video on Facebook if she continued to contact him.

The woman further alleged that the appellant had induced her into a physical relationship on the promise of marriage and had also subjected her to emotional manipulation and pressure during her pregnancies.

The Trial Court acquitted the accused of offences under Sections 376 IPC (rape), 493 IPC, and 354C IPC, but convicted him under Part II of Section 506 IPC for criminal intimidation involving threat to impute unchastity to a woman. The Madras High Court subsequently affirmed the conviction, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court by the accused.

Decision

Affirming the conviction, the judgment authored by Justice Kotiswar Singh, referring to the Constitution Bench decision in Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39, which struck down the offence of adultery, noted that traditional notions of chastity were deeply rooted in patriarchal assumptions that controlled women's sexuality.

The Court observed that modern constitutional jurisprudence requires “chastity” to be interpreted in line with dignity, decisional autonomy, privacy, and sexual self-determination.

“…any consensual sexual act is one that an individual, more particularly a woman would reasonably want to keep private and retain autonomy over, and is, therefore, an act that deserves protection. 'Unchastity' should then be read also as an action that interferes with the privacy and autonomy of one's own consensual sexual activities. 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.”, the court observed.

“In the age of the internet, the dignity of a person is intrinsically tied to their person and reputation as perceived online. Any private content circulated online with intent to negatively impact their reputation can be understood to cause harm to one's reputation. It also causes harm to their person by directly violating one's privacy, which is a recognised and protected right. Thus, chastity is not to be seen from the narrow perspective of sexual behaviour cloistered by traditional moral values only, but also from the vantage point of dignity and autonomy associated with the sexual autonomy of a woman. Any such reprehensible act which seeks to lower or tarnish the dignity of a woman relating to her sexual autonomy and identity, which she seeks to jealously guard, can be said to be an assault on her chastity amounting to imputing unchastity to the woman.”, the court added.

Non-Recovery of Mobile Phone Not Fatal

A key issue before the Court was that the alleged mobile phone containing the video had never been recovered during the investigation.

The Court nevertheless held that recovery of the digital device was not a sine qua non for conviction if there existed credible oral evidence establishing the offence.

“Law does not mandate that recovery of an article of crime is sine qua non for conviction of an offence, though production of the same would strengthen the prosecution case. Non-recovery of the same will not be fatal to the prosecution case if there are other credible evidence to prove the existence of such object of crime/material, and it would depend on the peculiar facts obtaining in the case.”, the court observed.

Relying on the testimony of the prosecutrix and corroborative statements made by her sisters, the Court held that the prosecution had successfully established the existence of the threat beyond reasonable doubt.

“In the present case, even though the mobile phone was not seized or recovered, if the existence of the video in the mobile phone can be clearly inferred, it may not be fatal to the prosecution's case. We must, therefore, examine whether the testimonial evidence on record, even in the absence of recovery of the videography, is credible enough to hold that such a videography was recorded.”, the court observed, citing Goverdhan v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 51.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was dismissed, the conviction was upheld. However, noting that the incident happened in 2015, the Court said that the interest of justice will be served if the sentence is reduced to the period of custody already undergone by the appellant.

“As the appellant had already been released on bail during the pendency of this appeal, the bail bond and surety shall stand discharged.”, the court ordered.

Cause Title: VIJAYAKUMAR VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 531

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. M.p. Parthiban, AOR Ms. Priyaranjani Nagamuthu, Adv. Mr. Bilal Mansoor, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Kaushal, Adv. Mr. S. Geyolin Selvam, Adv. Mr. Alagiri K, Adv. Mr. Shivansh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rohan Singh, Adv. Dr. Vikas Pahal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, A.A.G. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR