Consent for sex not license to post private videos on social media: Delhi High Court

Consent for sexual relations cannot be stretched to assume that the concerned person is also consenting to having their private moments recorded, misused and posted on social media, observed the Delhi High Court recently [Sudhir Kumar V. The State NCT of Delhi]..Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while denying bail to a man accused of raping a woman and blackmailing her by posting inappropriate videos of her on WhatsApp, Instagram and Facebook. The accused man denied the allegations against him and claimed that the sexual relations were consensual. The Court, however, noted that even if the woman had given consent for sexual relations, it would not condone the accused man's act of posting private videos on social media. "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's January 17 order said. .Consent to physical relations does not extend to the misuse or exploitation of a person's private moments.Delhi High Court.The Court added that even if the sexual relationship between the accused and the complainant was initially consensual, the subsequent acts of the accused were rooted in coercion and blackmail.“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 said. .The complainant was a married woman who became friendly with the accused over telephonic conversations. The accused later gave her a loan of ₹3.5 lakhs for a beautician course. The complainant alleged that the accused eventually started blackmailing her into complying with sexual demands and that he also captured compromising videos of her over WhatsApp video calls.The accused man then allegedly circulated these videos to people in her native village and posted inappropriate videos on social media platforms.He also allegedly circulated morphed photographs of complainant’s 13-year-old daughter and other female relatives on social media, stating that they indulge in sex trade. Due to this, The complainant started receiving unsolicited phone calls.After she filed a criminal complaint, the accused was eventually arrested in January last year and later moved for bail..Before the High Court, the accused denied that allegations. He claimed that it was a case of a friendly relation gone sour after the complainant found herself unable to repay some money. He added that sexual relations between him and the complainant were consensual. The Court eventually rejected his bail plea after noting the serious nature of the allegations against him. “Once the accused had recorded the complainant's inappropriate videos without her consent, these videos became tools of manipulation and control," it observed. It said that 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 Court added that the accused man's attempt to weaponize the complainant’s marital status and her work at a massage parlor to diminish the gravity of the allegations was 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 said. .Advocate Sumit Kumar appeared for the accused. Additional Public Prosecutor Raj Kumar appeared for the State..[Read Order]