Sharing Nude Video is offensive under Section 67 IT Act

While deciding upon the application for anticipatory bail in the case of Estar Nazrul Ahmed v The State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court observed that forwarding nude video of a person is an offense under the Section 67A of the Information Technology Act.

It was observed by Justice Bharti that the intention of the legislature while introducing the term “sexually implicit” was not just to restrict the act with an activity of indulging in the sex, thus transmitting or publishing obscene materials through electronic form can’t be denied under the ambit of Section 67. 

The application for anticipatory bail was hence denied while observing that the term “sexually explicit” under section 67A of the IT Act is not merely limited ti the act of sexual intercourse but sharing of nude videos would also be included in it.

Facts of the Case: 

A case against the accused was filed by a woman in April 2022 in a Thane Police Station. It was told in the complaint that the woman developed intimacy with the accused at some time in the past. It was admitted by her that the sexual relationship was established between them by her consent. The man during the relationship asked for her nude video, and she hesitated, but after he assured her to delete the video after seeing it she agreed.

She told the police that she was confronted by the wife and daughter of the accused with the video when she visited their house and was told to stay away from him. She agreed and severed ties with the accused.

Later, the accused met her after three years and threatened her with the old video. After which, she agreed to start meeting with him again. However, the accused shared the said video with a number of people, including her husband, and the video got circulated in her entire village. The woman hence decided to file a case against the accused.

The accused was charged under Section 67A of the IT Act. He approached the High Court for anticipatory bail.

Judgment-

The Court held that the claim of the accused that just a nude video could not be considered “sexually explicit” is wrong. The Court referred to the definition given in the Oxford Dictionary to decide the case.

It was held by the Court that the legislature’s intention was to protect the rights of women and children and to provide them with protection from exploitation by publishing or transmitting any obscene material and thus such act would be considered under the term ‘sexually implicit’. 

The Court decided that the allegations against the man were serious as he exploited a woman by sharing private nude videos of a woman, hence the case requires the custodial investigation of the man thus the application of the man for anticipatory bail was refused.