The Supreme Court has delivered a significant judgment on privacy, dignity and women’s sexual autonomy while upholding the conviction of a man for criminal intimidation under Part II of Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh ruled that threatening to upload a woman’s private bathing video on social media can amount to imputing unchastity and therefore constitute an aggravated form of criminal intimidation punishable under law.
The ruling came in Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, where the appellant challenged his conviction under Part II of Section 506 IPC after being acquitted of charges under Sections 376 (rape), 493 (cohabitation by deceitful marriage belief), and 354C (voyeurism).
According to the prosecution, the complainant alleged that she had been in a relationship with the appellant for nearly two years. She claimed that the appellant repeatedly assured her of marriage and during the relationship had secretly recorded a video of her while she was bathing. She further alleged that he later threatened to release the video on social media if she continued insisting on maintaining their relationship and marriage commitments.
The Trial Court acquitted the appellant of rape and voyeurism charges, holding that the relationship appeared consensual and that the prosecution had failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. However, it convicted him under Part II of Section 506 IPC on the basis of evidence suggesting threats to circulate private content. The High Court subsequently affirmed this conviction.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that since he had been acquitted of the principal charges, the conviction for criminal intimidation could not survive independently. He also contended that no mobile phone or video recording had ever been recovered during investigation and therefore the charge itself could not stand.
Rejecting this argument, the Supreme Court observed that separate criminal charges arising from a common set of facts must still be independently examined because each offence has distinct ingredients. The Court clarified that acquittal in one charge does not automatically lead to acquittal in another if independent evidence supports the latter offence.
The judgment contains an extensive discussion on the changing legal understanding of “chastity.” The Court noted that earlier legal approaches viewed chastity largely through the prism of sexual morality. However, constitutional jurisprudence has evolved and now places greater emphasis on dignity, privacy and autonomy.
The Court held that chastity should not be understood merely through traditional moral concepts but should be viewed as a woman’s autonomy over her own sexual choices and personal information. It observed that in the digital age, unauthorised dissemination of intimate content strikes directly at privacy and dignity protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court observed that a woman naturally possesses a reasonable expectation of privacy while bathing and that publication of such images would violate both privacy and dignity. Therefore, threatening to circulate such material would amount to an attack on her sexual autonomy and can constitute imputing unchastity under Part II of Section 506 IPC.
Another important issue before the Court concerned the absence of recovery of the mobile phone or alleged video recording. Addressing this issue, the Supreme Court ruled that recovery of material evidence is not always indispensable for sustaining a conviction. The Court stated that while production of such evidence would strengthen the prosecution’s case, non-recovery by itself cannot be fatal if credible testimonial evidence exists.
The Court further discussed Sections 106 and 114 of the Evidence Act and noted that intimate relationships create private interpersonal spaces where events are often known only to the persons involved. Consequently, certain facts may lie within the special knowledge of those individuals.
Case Details
Case Title: Vijayakumar Versus State Of Tamil Nadu
Citation: JURISHOUR-1343-SC-2026
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2859 Of 2025
Date: May 22, 2026
