‘Digital scars permanent’: Rajasthan High Court orders Meta to scrub private images of son after father’s plea

Justice Farjand Ali directed Meta to verify and suspend the offending account.

“The dissemination of private and intimate content without consent is not merely a legal wrong but a profound invasion of dignity with cascading and irreversible consequences. The law, therefore, must respond with sensitivity, urgency, and firmness so as to adequately protect the individual from such enduring harm and to uphold the constitutional promise of a dignified existence,” the Rajasthan High Court said on March 19.

‘Digital scars’

In a poignant observation, the court described the harm caused by such violations as leaving “enduring digital scars,” emphasising that the damage is continuous and often irreversible. The Rajasthan High Court also directed the immediate takedown of the material from Instagram, holding that platforms cannot remain “mute spectators” once illegality is brought to their notice.

The court said that the concept of a “digital scar” assumes even greater significance in the context of the right to be forgotten and the inability to fully erase such content results in a continuing violation, where the victim is repeatedly subjected to the same harm, thereby converting a singular act into a perpetual wrong.

The court added that such acts have a chilling effect on the exercise of fundamental freedoms, and the fear of misuse of personal data and intimate content may deter individuals from freely expressing themselves or engaging in digital spaces, undermining the very fabric of a free and open society.

Court’s directions

Disposing of the petition, the Rajasthan High Court issued a series of directions:

• The court directed the Centre to coordinate with Meta platforms to ensure the immediate and permanent removal of all obscene and private content related to the victim from Instagram.
• The platform was directed to verify and suspend the offending account, which has already been identified, if found responsible.
• Authorities were instructed to act promptly to safeguard the victim’s dignity and privacy, and the court also granted liberty to the petitioner to approach it again in case of non-compliance.

‘Obscene’ content circulated

The petitioner approached the Rajasthan High Court alleging that ‘obscene’ and ‘private’ images of his son were being maliciously circulated on social media to tarnish the family’s reputation. He argued that despite lodging a police complaint, no effective action was taken, allowing the content to remain online and continue harming the victim’s dignity and reputation.

Despite lodging a complaint with the local police and seeking registration of a First Information Report (FIR), no effective action was taken, forcing the petitioner to invoke the court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 (power of high courts to issue certain writs) of the Constitution.

The court noted that the objectionable content continued to circulate, aggravating the harm with each passing moment.

Privacy core constitutional guarantee

The Rajasthan High Court said that the dissemination of private and intimate content strikes at the “very core” of the right to privacy, which is an intrinsic part of the right to life under Article 21.

Drawing from the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union of India (2017), the court observed that privacy includes the right “to be let alone” and protects personal autonomy, bodily integrity, and informational self-determination.

“Any unauthorised dissemination of intimate content not only violates the sanctity of the individual’s private sphere but also results in a continuing and aggravated infraction of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the Rajasthan High Court held.

On ‘safe harbour’

The court examined the statutory obligations of social media platforms under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the IT Rules, 2021, stressing that intermediaries are under a “positive and continuing obligation” to prevent misuse of their platforms.

It held that while intermediaries enjoy conditional immunity under the doctrine of “safe harbour,” such protection is contingent upon due diligence and prompt action.

“The legislative scheme makes it abundantly clear that an intermediary cannot remain a mute spectator once illegality is brought to its notice. Any failure, delay, or lack of diligence in removing or disabling access to such content would result in the forfeiture of the statutory protection, thereby exposing the intermediary to legal consequences,” the court said.

Recognition of ‘right to be forgotten’

The judgment also highlighted the growing importance of the “right to be forgotten” as a facet of informational privacy, particularly in cases involving non-consensual dissemination of intimate material.

The Rajasthan High Court observed that closely intertwined with the right to privacy is the doctrine of the right to be forgotten, which has been recognised as an emerging facet of informational privacy. “The said doctrine enables an individual to seek erasure, removal, or delinking of personal data which is no longer necessary or which unjustifiably infringes upon one’s privacy and dignity,” the court said.

Balancing takedown with evidence preservation

While directing immediate removal of the offending content, the Rajasthan High Court also stressed the need to preserve digital evidence, including metadata, IP logs, and account details, to aid investigation and prosecution.

It noted that electronic records, recognised under Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act, must be maintained in their original form to ensure their evidentiary value.