The notification chimed at lunch break. You opened it expecting a meme. Instead a stranger had sent you an explicit photograph and a one-line caption that made your stomach turn. You closed the app. Two hours later there were three more messages, then a video, then a request to "reply or I send these to your boss". You sat in the canteen with cold tea, embarrassed to tell anyone, sure it was somehow your fault, unsure whether the police would even take you seriously.
None of those instincts is correct. The law in India does not blame the recipient of obscene material; it punishes the sender. There are at least four separate provisions that apply to your phone screen right now, and the protocol for using them is well established. This article walks you through that protocol, so that the next two hours can be spent saving your evidence and starting your complaint, not freezing in shame.
What the Law Counts as Obscene
The central provision is Section 67 of the IT Act — the law against publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form. It uses words borrowed directly from Section 292 of the IPC: material is "obscene" if it is lascivious, appeals to the prurient interest, or has the tendency to deprave and corrupt persons likely to read or see it.
Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees.
Two things matter for the reader. First, the section applies to "transmission" — sending content to even one person on a private chat is enough. The Supreme Court accepted in State v Avnish Bajaj that an MMS sent peer-to-peer through a phone was within Section 67. Public posting is not required. Second, the test of obscenity is set by Indian case law. The Supreme Court in Ranjit D. Udeshi v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 881 applied the Hicklin test and described the question as one of degree — does the material tend to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such influence? Later judgments have refined this into a community standards test that asks how an ordinary person of contemporary Indian society would view the content. Mere nudity is not, by itself, obscene. But content sent specifically to harass, arouse or threaten the recipient very clearly crosses the line.
Section 67, 67A and 67B — How They Differ
The IT Act layers its obscenity offences by harshness, and you should know which one fits your case.
Section 67 — basic obscenity in electronic form. First conviction up to three years and fine up to five lakh rupees; second conviction up to five years and fine up to ten lakh. Bailable, post the 2008 amendment that reduced the punishment from earlier five years.
Section 67A — sexually explicit acts. Where the material contains "sexually explicit act or conduct", Section 67A applies, with first-conviction imprisonment up to five years and fine up to ten lakh. Second-conviction up to seven years and fine up to ten lakh. This is non-bailable, and the police take it considerably more seriously.
Section 67B — sexual material involving children. The strictest of the three. It punishes whoever publishes, transmits, browses, downloads or even seeks out material depicting children in sexually explicit acts. First-conviction up to five years; second up to seven. Read with the POCSO Act, this is the heaviest cyber-obscenity provision in the statute book.
The same incident can attract more than one. A single video sent to you may contain elements of all three — basic obscenity, a sexually explicit act, and (if anyone in the video is a minor) child material. The FIR should cite every applicable sub-section, not stop at Section 67.
When the IPC Sections Step In
The IT Act is one of two parallel statutes. The IPC adds three more layers.
Section 66E of the IT Act read with IPC 354C — privacy and voyeurism. If the obscene content includes an image of you that you did not consent to be captured — bathroom, changing room, intimate moment — Section 66E of the IT Act squarely applies, with up to three years' imprisonment or fine up to two lakh rupees. The provision defines "private area" as the naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast. Section 354C of the IPC adds a similar voyeurism offence with up to seven years on second conviction.
Section 354A of the IPC — sexual harassment. "Showing pornography against the will of a woman" and "making sexually coloured remarks" are listed as forms of sexual harassment, punishable with imprisonment up to three years. A man who sends you an obscene image without your consent is, by the plain text of Section 354A, sexually harassing you. The Supreme Court has held in cases following Vishaka v State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011 that offences relating to a woman's modesty cannot be treated as trivial.
Section 509 of the IPC — word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman. This section punishes whoever "intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman". Punishment is simple imprisonment up to three years and fine. The 2010 Supreme Court decision in S Khushboo v Kanniammal, AIR 2010 SC 3196 emphasised that the modesty of a particular woman or readily identifiable group must be insulted by the spoken word, gesture or physical act — and a private DM with obscene content fits that frame.
Where the harasser is doing this through a fake account, the layered framework on privacy under Indian law and how to enforce it after Puttaswamy reinforces your remedies — privacy violation is now a constitutionally protected fundamental right.
Sextortion — The Worst End of the Spectrum
The 11:47 PM message that says "reply or I post these to your contacts" is not just obscene — it is criminal extortion. Section 384 of the IPC punishes whoever, with intent to cause fear of injury to a person, dishonestly induces him to deliver any property or valuable security. The classical authority is Romesh Chandra Arora (1960) 1 SCR 924, in which an accused took indecent photographs of a girl and threatened her father with publication unless "hush money" was paid. The Supreme Court held the accused guilty of criminal intimidation. The same fact pattern, played out through DMs in 2026, attracts at least:
- Section 67 or 67A of the IT Act for the obscene transmission;
- Section 66E of the IT Act if intimate images are involved;
- Section 354A and 354C of the IPC for sexual harassment and voyeurism;
- Section 384 IPC for the extortion;
- Section 506 of the IPC for criminal intimidation;
- Section 507 of the IPC if the threat is anonymous.
Six sections at once. The FIR should not look thin. Every section above is supported by the source commentary, and a cyber-cell that sees a complete legal frame in your complaint takes the case more seriously.
Getting the Content Pulled Down First
Before the FIR, get the content off the platform. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules require every social-media intermediary — Instagram, X, Facebook, WhatsApp, Telegram, YouTube — to act within thirty-six hours of receiving actual knowledge from an aggrieved person and disable access to information that is obscene, pornographic or invasive of another's privacy.
The commentary on Section 67 read with Section 79 of the IT Act makes the position very clear: an intermediary that ignores a written complaint by an affected person can itself be treated as a co-abettor of the offence. Use the platform's official report tool, mark the violation as "sexually explicit" or "non-consensual intimate imagery". For India, the cybercrime portal also operates a dedicated channel for non-consensual intimate imagery, where the central nodal officer can issue takedown directions to the platform under the IT Rules.
Why You Must Not Delete Anything
The instinct to delete obscene messages from your phone is overwhelming. Resist it. Indian courts admit chat screenshots and image files as electronic records, but only if the originals can be authenticated. Once a chat is deleted, no certificate or affidavit can resurrect it.
Do these four things in this order. One, screenshot the entire conversation — the sender's display name, his number or username, the platform header, the system clock. Two, email the screenshots to yourself. The email server's timestamp creates an independent record. Three, if images or videos were sent as files, do not open them again unnecessarily. The hash of the file at the time of receipt may be relevant evidence; opening can change metadata. Four, keep your phone with the original chat undeleted. The investigating officer may need to inspect it directly, and a forensic image may be taken later.
Ahead of approaching the police, write a short narrative — when did the messages start, how often, has the sender approached you offline before, do you know the sender. Two pages on plain paper. This becomes the body of your complaint.
Filing the FIR Or Cyber Complaint
Two parallel routes. Use both.
Cyber complaint at cybercrime.gov.in. The portal accepts complaints round the clock. Upload screenshots, the URL or username of the sender, and the narrative. You will receive an acknowledgement number — keep it.
FIR at the police station under BNSS Section 173. The new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita that replaced the CrPC from 1 July 2024 requires the SHO to reduce every information about a cognizable offence to writing, "irrespective of the area where the offence is committed" — the codified zero-FIR. The classical authority on what constitutes an FIR is Soma v State of Gujarat AIR 1975 SC 1453 — the earliest information given to the police, which sets the investigation in motion, becomes the FIR. The cyber portal acknowledgement is not the FIR; the police record under Section 173 BNSS is.
The FIR should cite at minimum Sections 67, 67A and 66E of the IT Act, and Sections 354A, 509 and 506 of the IPC. If sextortion is involved, add Sections 384 and 507. Insist on a copy of the FIR with the FIR number, station and date stamp before you leave.
If The Police Stall — The Magistrate Route
Cyber-obscenity complaints, especially where the victim is a woman, sometimes meet a wall of "go and settle this with the family". Indian law does not require you to settle. Three escalations exist.
One — the Superintendent of Police. BNSS Section 173(4) — corresponding to old CrPC Section 154(3) — entitles you to send the substance of your information by registered post to the SP. The SP, if satisfied that a cognizable offence is disclosed, must either investigate himself or direct the SHO to do so.
Two — the Magistrate. File a private complaint before the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate under BNSS Section 223 (old CrPC Section 200). The Magistrate has two powers — to take cognizance directly and proceed with examination of the complainant on oath, or to order police investigation under BNSS Section 175(3) (old CrPC Section 156(3)). The Supreme Court in All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees Union v Union of India (1996) 11 SCC 582 upheld this Magistrate route as the legal answer when the police "does not register the case".
Three — the High Court. A writ petition under Article 226 can compel investigation in extreme cases — used sparingly but effective.
If you find yourself at the second or third escalation, professional drafting matters more than ever. The cyber-litigation team at Pinaka Legal handles FIRs under Section 67/67A IT Act, Magistrate complaints under BNSS 175(3), takedown coordination with intermediaries, and Adjudicating Officer compensation claims as a single workflow — useful when your immediate concern is to stop the content and your medium-term concern is accountability.
What Should I Actually Do Now?
- Stop the app. Put the phone down. Take a breath. None of this is your fault.
- Screenshot the entire conversation including sender details, system clock and platform header.
- Email the screenshots to yourself for an independent server-stamped copy.
- Do not delete the original chat or the image files. Keep your phone exactly as it is.
- Report the content through the platform's official tool and via cybercrime.gov.in. Save both acknowledgement numbers.
- Walk into your nearest police station with a printed complaint, your photo ID, and the screenshots. Insist on FIR registration under IT Act Sections 67, 67A and 66E and IPC Sections 354A, 509 and 506. Add Sections 384 and 507 if extortion or anonymity is involved.
- Get a copy of the FIR with the FIR number and date stamp before leaving.
- If the SHO refuses, send the complaint by registered post to the Superintendent of Police on the same day.
- If the SP also fails, file a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate under BNSS Section 223 within thirty days, asking for direct cognizance or BNSS 175(3) investigation. Step-by-step Magistrate route guidance for FIR refusal cases is here.
- Block the harasser only after evidence is preserved and the FIR is registered. Never before.
A Word Before You Take The First Step
Almost every reader at this point is alone with a phone they would rather throw away. The single most important thing to remember is that the harasser is gambling on your silence. He is counting on shame. He is counting on the assumption that you will not file. The Indian legal framework — the IT Act provisions, the IPC sections on modesty and harassment, the BNSS escalation ladder, the intermediary thirty-six-hour rule — exists precisely to break that gamble. The moment you act, the calculation flips.
Do not rush to confront the sender. Do not "warn" him. Do not reply at all. Save first, complain second, block last. Bring a friend or family member to the police station if it helps you stay calm. The SHO who hesitates at the IPC sections will usually act when the IT Act numbers are on the page in front of him — Sections 67 and 67A are familiar to every cyber cell.
The screen that read like the worst moment of your week becomes, in three weeks, a closed FIR with a takedown order in your file. Take the first step today. Tomorrow's worry is smaller than tonight's.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it a crime in India to send obscene pictures on WhatsApp or DM?
Yes. Section 67 of the IT Act punishes anyone who publishes or transmits in electronic form any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest, with imprisonment up to three years and fine up to five lakh rupees on first conviction. The provision is modelled on Section 292 of the IPC and uses the same tests of obscenity. Where the content is sexually explicit, Section 67A of the IT Act applies, with stricter punishment up to five years on first conviction. WhatsApp and DM are clearly "communication devices or computer resources" covered by these sections.
What is the legal test for whether a message or image is obscene?
Section 67 borrows the wording of Section 292 IPC. Material is obscene if it is lascivious, appeals to the prurient interest, or has the tendency to deprave and corrupt persons likely to read or see it. The Supreme Court in Ranjit D. Udeshi v State of Maharashtra (1965) endorsed the Hicklin test, refined later in Aveek Sarkar v State of West Bengal (2014) to a community-standards test based on the contemporary morals of an ordinary person. Mere nudity is not, by itself, obscene — but messages aimed at exciting lust or sexual harassment squarely qualify.
Someone sent me intimate images of myself taken without consent. Which section applies?
Section 66E of the IT Act squarely applies. It punishes whoever, intentionally or knowingly, captures, publishes or transmits the image of a private area of any person without consent, under circumstances violating that person's privacy. "Private area" is defined as the naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast. Punishment is imprisonment up to three years or fine up to two lakh rupees. Section 67A of the IT Act adds a separate offence for sexually explicit content, and Section 354A or 354C of the IPC may also be invoked.
Can I file an FIR if obscene messages are sent only to me, not posted publicly?
Yes. Section 67 covers "transmission" to a single recipient — the section uses "publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form". The Supreme Court has clarified that transmission to even one person is enough to trigger Section 67. In addition, Section 509 of the IPC punishes any word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman, including by exhibiting any object intending it to be seen by such a woman, with imprisonment up to three years and fine. A private DM with obscene content fits both.
What evidence should I save before reporting an obscene message?
Take screenshots of the entire chat, the sender's display name and number or username, the platform header, date and time, and the system clock on your phone. Email the screenshots to yourself for an independent timestamp. Do not delete the original chat — investigators may need to inspect your phone. Where images were received as files, do not open them again unnecessarily. The FIR will be supported by these electronic records, which under the law need a certificate identifying the device on which they were captured and confirming the device was operating properly.
Will the social-media platform take action even before the FIR?
Yes, where the content is obscene, pornographic or invasive of another's privacy. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules require intermediaries to act within thirty-six hours of obtaining actual knowledge — either from their own monitoring or from a written complaint by an aggrieved person — and disable such information. Use the platform's official report tool, mark the violation as "sexually explicit" or "non-consensual intimate imagery". Failure to act within thirty-six hours can expose the intermediary itself to liability under Section 67 read with Section 79 of the IT Act.
What is the difference between Section 67, 67A and 67B of the IT Act?
Section 67 deals with obscene material in electronic form — the basic provision, modelled on IPC 292, with up to three years' imprisonment on first conviction. Section 67A is specifically for material containing "sexually explicit act or conduct", with up to five years on first conviction and seven on second. Section 67B is the strictest — it deals with material depicting children in sexually explicit acts, with up to five years on first conviction and seven on second. The harshness scales with the nature of the content and the age of the persons depicted.
Is sending obscene messages a bailable or non-bailable offence?
Section 67 of the IT Act, with its three-year ceiling, is a bailable offence — the accused, if arrested, is entitled to bail as a matter of right. The 2008 amendment that reduced the maximum punishment is criticised in legal commentary as having taken the deterrence out of the section. However, Section 67A and 67B, with five-year ceilings, are non-bailable, as is Section 354A read with the IPC scheme. So the bailability depends on which sub-section the content attracts. Always insist on the full set of applicable sections in your FIR.
Can a man file a complaint under Section 67 of the IT Act?
Yes. Section 67 of the IT Act is gender-neutral. It punishes the publishing or transmission of obscene material in electronic form, regardless of who the recipient is. Section 354A IPC (sexual harassment) and Section 509 IPC (insulting the modesty of a woman) are gender-specific — they apply where the victim is a woman. But the IT Act's obscenity, identity and privacy provisions — Sections 66C, 66D, 66E, 67, 67A — apply to victims of any gender. A male victim of cyber sextortion has full standing under those sections.
What are my obscene messages or images sent to me online legal remedies india, in one sentence?
Your remedies are five layered ones — preserve evidence by clean screenshots, report the content to the platform under the thirty-six-hour intermediary rule, lodge a cyber complaint at cybercrime.gov.in, register an FIR under Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act and Sections 354A, 509 and 506 of the IPC, and if the police stall, escalate by registered post to the Superintendent of Police under BNSS Section 173(4) and then by private complaint before the Magistrate under BNSS Section 223 and Section 175(3) — all available in parallel.
What if the sender threatens to circulate intimate images unless I do something?
This is the classic sextortion pattern, and the law treats it as a serious offence. Section 384 of the IPC (extortion) covers anyone who, with intent to cause fear of injury, dishonestly induces a person to deliver any property or valuable security. In Romesh Chandra Arora (1960) 1 SCR 924, the Supreme Court held that taking indecent photographs of a girl and threatening her father with publication unless "hush money" was paid amounted to criminal intimidation. Modern sextortion adds Section 67A IT Act, IPC 354C (voyeurism), and 506 (criminal intimidation). The FIR should cite all of them.
Can I get the obscene image taken down before the FIR is registered?
Yes. Takedown via the platform happens through its grievance officer under the Intermediary Rules — usually within seventy-two hours if the content is clearly obscene or non-consensual intimate imagery. India also operates a Stop Non-Consensual Intimate Imagery channel through the cybercrime portal where the central nodal officer can issue takedown directions. The Grievance Appellate Committee notified by the Ministry of Electronics and IT can be approached if the platform refuses. None of these requires waiting for the FIR — they run in parallel.
How long does an obscene-message case actually take?
Takedown is fastest — seventy-two hours when the platform cooperates. FIR registration is immediate if the SHO acts under BNSS Section 173, otherwise a few days through the SP route. Investigation, including forensic recovery of the device and IP-trace, usually takes sixty to ninety days. The chargesheet under BNSS Section 193 (old CrPC Section 173(2)) follows. For Section 67A cases the BNSS specifically extends the investigation period to two months and adds POCSO-related timelines where applicable. Trial in summary courts is six to eighteen months. Faster if the accused pleads guilty under BNSS plea-bargaining.
For more articles on Indian law, visit the Pinaka Legal Blog. For queries, call +91 8595704798 or email info@pinakalegal.com.