In an era where our lives are increasingly lived through screens, the boundary between private moments and public exposure has become terrifyingly thin. For years, victims of digital abuse specifically revenge porn and sextortion have faced a double trauma. First, the devastating betrayal of having their most intimate moments broadcasted or used as blackmail. Second, a systemic hurdle at police stations, where victims were frequently turned away, dismissed, or shamed by officials who argued that because the images were originally taken voluntarily, no "real" crime had occurred.
Karnataka has officially drawn a line in the sand against this archaic mindset. Through a groundbreaking directive issued by the state government and police department, the state has made it absolutely mandatory for police stations to register a First Information Report (FIR) in all cases involving the non-consensual sharing of intimate images and videos.
This move is a massive step forward for digital autonomy, bodily privacy, and institutional accountability. By fundamentally redefining how law enforcement views digital consent, Karnataka is setting a modern standard for the rest of India to follow.
The Core Principle: "Consent to Record is Not Consent to Share"
At the absolute heart of this new policy is a deceptively simple sentence spoken by Karnataka Home Minister Priyank Kharge, "Consent to record is not consent to share." To understand why this directive is so revolutionary, we have to look at how consent operates in the digital age. In many relationships, partners may willingly choose to share private photos or record intimate videos together. This is a private, consensual act between adults. However, if that relationship ends, or if trust is broken, and one person decides to leak, forward, or publish those files to humiliate or blackmail the other, a severe violation occurs.
Historically, when victims approached law enforcement to report these leaks, they were met with a wall of skepticism. Police officers would often ask: "But didn't you allow them to take the photo?" or "Why did you send it in the first place?" This logic erroneously implied that by consenting to the creation of a digital file, a person permanently surrendered control over where that file traveled. The new Standing Order completely shatters this flawed logic. It establishes, legally and operationally, that consent is not a one-time, blanket permission. Consenting to an intimate moment inside a secure, private relationship does not mean giving permission for that moment to be broadcasted to the world. The act of distributing, forwarding, or publishing that content without active, ongoing consent is a distinct, serious criminal offense.
The Legal Teeth: BNS, 2023, and the IT Act
By formalizing this directive, the Karnataka Police Department has instructed all officers across the state to immediately invoke rigorous legal frameworks without hesitation or delay. Under the new guidelines, complaints regarding the non-consensual dissemination of intimate content will be filed under both the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000.
Specifically, police are directed to register cases using:
- Section 77 of the BNS, 2023: Which penalizes practices that violate a woman's modesty and privacy.
- Section 66E of the IT Act: Which deals explicitly with the violation of bodily privacy by capturing, publishing, or transmitting images of a person's private areas without consent.
- Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act: Which carry severe penalties for transmitting or publishing sexually explicit material in electronic form.
Furthermore, because these cases are rarely just about the leak itself, the directive orders police to append charges related to extortion and criminal intimidation. In cases of "sextortion", where criminals threaten to release private material unless the victim pays money or performs sexual favors, the law will treat the act with the same gravity as physical extortion.
Eliminating Bureaucratic Delays: The Role of Zero-FIRs
One of the most common tactics used to delay justice in India is the argument over territorial jurisdiction. A victim goes to a police station near their home, only to be told, "The person who did this lives in another district, go file it there," or "The incident happened while you were in a different city." In digital crimes, where data exists on global servers and the perpetrator could be anywhere, these jurisdictional runarounds can be completely paralyzing. To eliminate this barrier, Karnataka’s new mandate forces police stations to utilize the Zero-FIR mechanism.
A Zero-FIR allows a victim to walk into any police station, regardless of where the crime took place, where they live, or where the offender is located, and demand that their complaint be registered immediately. The police station cannot turn them away. They must register the FIR, number it "0", initiate immediate emergency actions, and then handle the internal administrative transfer to the appropriate jurisdiction themselves. For a victim already dealing with intense panic and psychological distress, this completely removes the exhausting burden of navigating police bureaucracy.
. . .
References: