Government working on bill to curb child & revenge porn: Solicitor general in SC

The proposed bill would target several forms of harmful sexual and manipulated content online. These include child pornography, videos of consensual adult sexual acts uploaded vindictively after a relationship ends, and morphed videos used to ridicule or defame personalities. The aim is to prevent offensive material from circulating on social media, not merely to remove it after widespread sharing.

For example, a jilted lover might upload a private video after a relationship breaks down. Someone could also alter a video to make a person appear in a humiliating or sexual situation. Under the proposed approach, platforms would be expected to act quickly when such material appears and report its source to police.

The government told the Supreme Court that it is drafting legislation, but the bill is not yet in force. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said deliberations were continuing. The court gave the government four weeks to report the outcome, so the scope and final wording of the proposed protections remain undecided.

Revenge porn, also called non-consensual sharing of intimate images, means distributing intimate photos or videos without the person’s permission. It often involves a former partner sharing private material after a relationship breaks down. The harm comes from the lack of consent and the loss of control over highly personal content.

Consensual sharing is different because the people shown agree to the image or video being shared, and possibly to its distribution. Consent to make or privately send an intimate video does not automatically mean consent to upload it publicly. The article describes the proposed bill as addressing videos of consensual adult sexual acts uploaded “after souring of relations.”

The article does not use the term “revenge porn,” but it describes this conduct. It says the government is considering rules to stop circulation and require platforms to take down offensive material. It also proposes police complaints against the account or device used for uploading.

The article says that currently only the aggrieved person can file a police complaint in most cases. It notes that these complainants are often women whose intimate videos were uploaded without their agreement or used offensively. This can leave the targeted person carrying the burden of reporting the abuse.

The proposed rules would add duties for social media intermediaries. They would have to immediately take down offensive content and mandatorily file a police complaint against the handle or digital device from which it was uploaded. A handle means the online account or identity associated with the upload. The proposed duty would therefore combine rapid removal with a formal law-enforcement report.

These responsibilities are still under discussion. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court that the government was drafting a bill and considering legislative intervention. The court gave the government four weeks to update it on the deliberations. The final duties will depend on the bill’s wording.

Online sexual or morphed material can potentially be copied, reposted, and shown to many people soon after upload. That makes the first moments important. However, the article does not provide a measured spread rate, number of viewers, or geographic reach. Any exact claim about how quickly or widely a video spreads would therefore go beyond the reported facts.

The article points to several kinds of content that could circulate: child pornography, vindictive uploads of consensual sexual acts, and morphed videos. It says these materials are circulated on social media and describes the problem as a menace requiring robust legislative intervention. The proposed response is immediate removal by the intermediary, alongside a police complaint.

The current reality is that the government is still drafting a bill. The Supreme Court has not been given a final legal framework in the article. It allowed four weeks for an update on the government’s deliberations, so the eventual rules may define the response more precisely.

If the proposed rules were adopted, an intermediary identifying offensive sexual or morphed content would have two immediate duties. It would remove the material from its service and file a police complaint. The complaint would identify the handle or digital device from which the content was uploaded, according to the Solicitor General’s submission.

For example, if a platform found a vindictively uploaded intimate video, it would not simply leave the material online until the person shown complained. It would take down the video and alert police through a mandatory complaint. This mechanism is designed to reduce continued circulation while creating a route to investigate the uploader.

The article describes this as a proposed approach, not an existing rule. Government deliberations on the bill were continuing when the matter reached the Supreme Court. The court gave the government four weeks to report their outcome. The final procedure, including enforcement details, is therefore not yet stated.

Public-interest litigations were brought because the issue affects more than one individual complaint. The article says the petitions seek a robust mechanism to stop the circulation of child pornography, sexual-assault videos, vindictively uploaded consensual adult videos, and morphed videos. This frames the problem as a broader public concern requiring systemic action.

The reported gap is that, at present, only the aggrieved person can usually file a police complaint. The petitioners and the court discussed a different model, in which intermediaries would immediately remove offensive content and file complaints themselves. That would not leave the response entirely with the person shown in the video.

The article names two PILs, one by Uday Mahurkar and another by the NGO Prajwala. The government said it was not opposing them and was drafting a bill. The Supreme Court agreed that robust legislative intervention was needed and gave the government four weeks for an update.

An internet intermediary is generally a service that helps users store, transmit, or share online material. Social media platforms are common examples. The article uses “intermediary” for the platform that hosts or carries the offensive content, although it does not define the term itself. This explanation relies on established internet-law usage.

The proposed approach would give the intermediary a direct role because the platform can act on content appearing through its service. It could immediately take down child pornography, sexual videos uploaded vindictively, or morphed videos. It would also have to file a police complaint against the handle or digital device used for uploading. The uploader would still be the source under investigation.

This shared responsibility is still only proposed in the article. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said legislative deliberations were underway. The Supreme Court agreed that robust legislation was needed and gave the government four weeks to report the outcome. The final legal responsibilities have not yet been settled.