In a landmark ruling, the Delhi High Court has unequivocally stated that consent for sexual relations cannot be extended to the recording, misuse, or public posting of private moments. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made this observation while rejecting the bail plea of a man accused of raping and blackmailing a married woman by posting her private videos on social media platforms such as WhatsApp, Instagram, and Facebook.
“Even if the consent for sexual relations had been given at any point of time by the complainant, such consent cannot, in any manner, be construed as consent to capture and post her inappropriate videos on social media platforms. Consent to engage in physical relations does not extend to the misuse or exploitation of a person’s private moments or their depiction in an inappropriate and derogatory manner,” the Court stated in its January 17 order.
Accusations of Coercion and Exploitation
The complainant alleged that the accused blackmailed her into complying with sexual demands after loaning her ₹3.5 lakhs for a beautician course. He purportedly recorded compromising videos during WhatsApp video calls, which he later circulated among people in her village and posted on social media. Adding to the severity of the allegations, he also allegedly shared morphed photographs of the complainant’s 13-year-old daughter and other female relatives, falsely accusing them of being involved in the sex trade, leading to unsolicited calls and harassment.
The Court observed that these actions were rooted in manipulation and coercion. “The accused’s actions in preparing the videos and using them to manipulate and sexually exploit the complainant prima facie reflects a strategy of abuse and exploitation, transcending any initial consensual interaction,” it noted.
Consent Under Duress Is No Consent
Rejecting the accused man’s argument that the sexual relationship was consensual, the Court emphasized, “Once the accused had recorded the complainant’s inappropriate videos without her consent, these videos became tools of manipulation and control. Even if it is assumed that the sexual relations were consensual to begin with, the subsequent sexual encounters were no longer consensual but were carried out under duress, with the complainant being put in fear of public humiliation and reputational damage.”
The accused also attempted to downplay the gravity of his actions by pointing to the complainant’s marital status and her work at a massage parlor. However, the Court dismissed this argument as irrelevant and unacceptable. “The mere fact of the complainant working in a massage parlour – absent any evidence of her being engaged in illicit or unlawful activities – cannot be used to undermine or mitigate the seriousness of the alleged offences committed against her,” it clarified.
Bail Denied
The Court concluded that the nature and seriousness of the allegations, coupled with the evidence of coercion and blackmail, left no room for granting bail. The accused’s actions, the Court said, were a clear violation of personal dignity and privacy, and the matter warranted stringent judicial scrutiny.
Case: Sudhir Kumar Vs The State NCT of Delhi – Available on LAWFYI.IO
