Morphing image of woman an assault on privacy, not a harmless prank: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently observed that making a morphed image of a woman amounts to a calculated attack of her privacy, reputation and dignity, and that such acts cannot be seen lightly as harmless digital pranks [Ramesh Kumar Vs SP].

Justice L Victoria Gowri of the Madurai Bench made the observation while directing the Dindigul police to act promptly on a complaint alleging that a woman’s morphed obscene photographs and videos were circulated on Instagram and other social media platforms.

"The dignity of a woman cannot be left at the mercy of a fake profile. A morphed image is not a harmless digital prank. It is a calculated assault on privacy, reputation and emotional security. The law must therefore move with the same speed with which the unlawful content travels,” the Court said.

The Court passed the ruling a plea filed againts the failure of the police to effectively tackle the circulation of morphed photos targeting a woman employed in Singapore as a housekeeper. Her brother filed the petition. He told the Court that his sister was being targeted through morphed, obscene/ nude photographs and videos. The plea stated that the content was circulated through multiple social media accounts, including a fake Instagram account bearing her name.

The petitioner further alleged that one Manikandan demanded money for deleting the morphed photographs and videos, and continued to circulate them when the demand was refused.

Justice Gowri said that such allegations of online sexual humiliation, morphing, creation of fake profiles, threat of further circulation and demand of money for deletion of such content, if true, amount to a serious intrusion into bodily privacy, decisional dignity, reputation and the protection of life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court added that such cases cannot be brushed aside as a mere family grievance or social media misunderstanding.

The Court also underscored the need for swift legal action in such matters.

“In cyber offences, delay is often fatal to evidence. Digital footprints are fragile. URLs may disappear. Accounts may be deleted. IP logs may be overwritten. Therefore, prompt preservation of digital evidence is not merely procedural; it is substantive justice,” the order stated.

The Court also held that the victim’s physical absence from India would not dilute the duty of Indian law enforcement agencies, since the complainant, family members, accused persons, digital access, threat calls or part of the cause of action were allegedly connected to the territorial jurisdiction of the Indian police.

The High Court, therefore, directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dindigul Rural, to consider the complaint dated March 20, 2026 and immediately verify the materials furnished by the petitioner.

If the complaint discloses a cognizable offence, the police has been directed to register an FIR under appropriate provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court further directed the police to secure relevant screenshots, URLs, profile links, account names, phone numbers, call details, messages and any proof of demand of money. It also ordered steps to preserve account details of the fake social media profile, IP logs, subscriber information and other electronic records from social media platforms.

If the offending morphed or obscene content is found online, the police must take steps for its removal or blocking through the competent authority, the Court said.

The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, was directed to monitor the progress of the case as well.

The petitioner was represented by Advocate P Manikandan.

Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu on the criminal side D Rajaboopathy appeared for the official respondents.

[Read Judgment]