Fake Instagram Account Used to Circulate Woman’s Morphed Images, Madras High Court Directs Four-Week Police Action
Facts
The petitioner, R. Ramesh Kumar, approached the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court seeking a direction to the police to act on his complaint dated 20 March 2026.
The petitioner’s sister, Nithya, was employed as a housekeeper in Singapore. According to the petitioner, her photographs were morphed to create obscene and nude images and videos, which were circulated through Instagram and other social media accounts.
One of the alleged fake Instagram accounts was created in the name “Nithya23319”.
The petitioner alleged that, after making inquiries, he discovered the involvement of the private respondent. He and his family members approached the respondent’s family and informed them about the alleged acts, but the circulation of the content continued.
It was further alleged that the fifth respondent contacted the petitioner over the phone and demanded money for deleting the morphed photographs and videos. When the petitioner refused to pay, the obscene content was allegedly uploaded and circulated further.
The petitioner submitted complaints to the police authorities and the District Collector. His grievance was that no effective action had been taken on the complaint dated 20 March 2026.
He therefore sought a writ of mandamus directing the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dindigul Rural, to take necessary action.
Issues
- Whether the allegations of morphing a woman’s photographs, creating obscene content and circulating it online prima facie disclosed cognizable offences.
- Whether the alleged demand for money in exchange for deleting the morphed content required investigation as possible extortion or criminal intimidation.
- Whether the police could treat the complaint merely as a private dispute or routine petition inquiry.
- Whether the victim’s residence outside India reduced the responsibility of Indian law-enforcement authorities to investigate.
- Whether the police were required to preserve electronic evidence and secure removal or blocking of the offending online content.
- Whether the High Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 to compel the police to perform their statutory duties.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the complaint disclosed serious cognizable offences and that the police were legally required to register an FIR and investigate.
He submitted that the allegations could attract Sections 66C, 66D, 66E, 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, depending upon the evidence collected during investigation.
It was further argued that the alleged conduct could attract provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 relating to:
- Sexual harassment;
- Stalking;
- Insult to the modesty and dignity of a woman;
- Criminal intimidation; and
- Extortion.
The petitioner emphasised that the victim was living abroad and that her family was economically vulnerable.
He sought immediate action not only for registration of a criminal case but also for:
- Preservation of screenshots, URLs and social-media records;
- Freezing or securing the offending accounts;
- Obtaining subscriber and IP details;
- Preventing further circulation; and
- Removing or blocking the objectionable content.
It was argued that delay in cybercrime investigation could result in the disappearance of digital evidence and continuation of harm to the victim.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State submitted that the petitioner’s complaint would be considered in accordance with law.
The Government Advocate stated that the Deputy Superintendent of Police would:
- Verify the allegations;
- Examine the digital materials submitted by the petitioner;
- Ascertain the details of the offending accounts; and
- Take appropriate action under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The State further assured the Court that, if the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence, an FIR would be registered and an investigation would be conducted in accordance with law.
The judgment does not record any detailed submissions on behalf of the private respondent.
Analysis of the Law
Online morphing and circulation are serious offences
The Court held that allegations involving the morphing of a woman’s photograph, creation of obscene content, circulation through fake accounts and demand for money for deletion could not be dismissed as a mere family dispute or social-media misunderstanding.
If established, such conduct would involve a serious attack on:
- Privacy;
- Reputation;
- Bodily autonomy;
- Emotional security;
- Decisional dignity; and
- The constitutional right to life and dignity under Article 21.
The Court observed that online sexual humiliation is not a harmless prank. Morphing and circulation of obscene images can constitute a calculated assault on a woman’s dignity and mental peace.
Delay can destroy digital evidence
The Court emphasised that digital evidence is fragile and can easily disappear.
It observed that:
- URLs may be deleted;
- Social-media accounts may be deactivated;
- IP logs may be overwritten;
- Messages and call records may be lost; and
- Electronic trails may become difficult to recover.
Therefore, prompt preservation of electronic evidence is not merely a procedural requirement but an essential component of substantive justice.
Duty to register FIR where cognizable offence is disclosed
The Court clarified that it was not deciding whether the allegations were true.
However, where the complaint and supporting material prima facie disclose a cognizable offence, the police must register an FIR and proceed with investigation under the applicable law.
The authorities could not mechanically close the matter as a petition inquiry without examining:
- Screenshots;
- URLs;
- Profile links;
- Account names;
- Phone numbers;
- Call records;
- Messages;
- Money demands; and
- Other available electronic evidence.
Victim’s presence abroad does not defeat jurisdiction
The Court held that the victim’s residence in Singapore did not dilute the duty of Indian law-enforcement agencies.
Indian authorities could investigate where the complainant, accused persons, family members, threatening calls, digital access or any part of the cause of action was connected with their territorial jurisdiction.
The victim’s physical absence from India could therefore not be used as a reason for inaction.
Removal and blocking form part of the remedial response
The Court recognised that the harm was continuing because the alleged morphed content remained available for circulation.
Accordingly, the remedial response had to extend beyond criminal prosecution. It also required immediate lawful measures for:
- Preservation of digital records;
- Identification of the person operating the accounts;
- Securing subscriber information and IP logs; and
- Removal or blocking of the offending content.
Precedent Analysis
The judgment does not cite or analyse any earlier judicial precedent by name.
The Court decided the matter by applying constitutional and statutory principles relating to:
- The protection of dignity and privacy under Article 21;
- The statutory duty of the police to act on information disclosing cognizable offences;
- The nature of cybercrime and electronic evidence;
- The Information Technology Act, 2000;
- The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; and
- The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The order is therefore primarily a rights-based and procedural decision directing an effective law-enforcement response to alleged cyber sexual exploitation.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that the allegations, if true, disclosed more than a private grievance.
The complaint involved the alleged:
- Morphing of a woman’s photograph;
- Creation and circulation of obscene images and videos;
- Use of fake social-media accounts;
- Threat of continued circulation; and
- Demand for money to delete the content.
The Court observed that such acts could amount to serious cyber offences involving sexual exploitation, privacy violations and possible extortion.
It held that the police were required to act promptly because delay could result in the destruction or disappearance of electronic evidence.
The Court further held that the complaint should not be mechanically closed. The investigating authority was required to examine the digital material and register an FIR if cognizable offences were disclosed.
The Court issued the following material directions:
- The Deputy Superintendent of Police must immediately verify the petitioner’s complaint dated 20 March 2026.
- Where the complaint discloses a cognizable offence, an FIR must be registered forthwith under the appropriate provisions of the Information Technology Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- The police must obtain from the petitioner all available screenshots, URLs, account details, phone numbers, call records, messages and evidence of monetary demands.
- Immediate steps must be taken to preserve account information, IP logs, subscriber details and other electronic records from the concerned intermediaries.
- Where the offending content is found online, the police must take lawful steps for its removal or blocking.
- The petitioner’s statement and, where feasible, the victim’s statement must be recorded. Since she was abroad, her statement could be recorded through video conferencing, consular assistance or another lawful channel.
- The Superintendent of Police must monitor the investigation.
- The exercise must preferably be completed within four weeks.
The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the truth of the allegations and that the investigation must remain independent and fair.
Conclusion
The Madras High Court disposed of the writ petition with comprehensive directions to the police.
It directed immediate consideration and verification of the petitioner’s complaint concerning the alleged morphing and circulation of his sister’s obscene images and videos.
The Court held that, if the materials disclosed cognizable offences, the police must promptly register an FIR and investigate.
It further directed the authorities to preserve electronic evidence, secure account and subscriber details, obtain IP logs, record the victim’s statement through an appropriate lawful mode and initiate removal or blocking of the offending content.
The Superintendent of Police was directed to monitor the matter, and the entire exercise was to be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks.
Case Details
Case: R. Ramesh Kumar v. Superintendent of Police & Others
Court: Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court
Case Number: W.P. (Crl.) (MD) No. 2027 of 2026
Judge: Justice L. Victoria Gowri
Date: 8 June 2026
Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions to immediately verify the cybercrime complaint, register an FIR if cognizable offences are disclosed, preserve electronic evidence, secure removal or blocking of the morphed content and complete the exercise preferably within four weeks.
