Mr. Prosecutor, the video was never recovered. How can you prove that the threat was real? What if the appellant never actually recorded a video?

My Lord, the offence is the threat, not the actual existence of the video. The prosecutrix genuinely believed that the video existed because the appellant told her it did. She had an intimate relationship with him based on trust. When he threatened to upload it, she was terrified. The threat caused her alarm, which is precisely what Section 503 IPC prohibits. The appellant cannot escape liability by claiming after the fact that the video did not exist. He held himself out as having the video, and the prosecutrix acted on that belief. The law does not require the prosecution to produce the video; it requires proof that the threat was made. That proof is found in the testimony of the prosecutrix and the corroborating witnesses.

The prosecutrix was in a consensual sexual relationship with the appellant. Why would she be concerned about her 'chastity' if she had already engaged in premarital sex?

My Lord, that question itself reflects the outdated, gendered understanding of chastity that this Court has rejected. In Joseph Shine, this Court held that society cannot have two sets of standards — one for women and another for men. A woman's sexual history does not forfeit her right to dignity and privacy. The threat to publish her bathing video is not about her sexual conduct; it is about the invasion of her privacy and the violation of her dignity. Even if she had a consensual sexual relationship, she would never consent to having a video of her bathing published on social media. The two are entirely different. The redefinition of 'unchastity' in this judgment makes it clear that chastity is about autonomy and dignity, not about moral purity.

The appellant was acquitted of rape. Does that not mean that the prosecutrix was not a credible witness? Why should her testimony be believed on the threat when it was disbelieved on the rape charge?

My Lord, the acquittal for rape was based on the finding that the sexual relationship was consensual. That does not mean the prosecutrix was lying about everything. A witness can be truthful on one aspect and mistaken on another, or the prosecution may fail to prove one charge while proving another. The Trial Court specifically held that the relationship was consensual — that is a finding that the parties were indeed in an intimate relationship. That finding actually supports the prosecution on the threat charge. If the parties were in an intimate relationship, it is entirely plausible that the appellant would have had access to record a video and would have used it as leverage when the relationship broke down. The court must assess each charge independently.

The appellant has already spent some time in custody. The Court is considering reducing the sentence to the period already undergone. Do you oppose that?

My Lord, the respondent does not oppose the reduction of sentence to the period already undergone. The victim has suffered immensely, but the appellant has also undergone incarceration and the incident occurred in 2015, nearly eleven years ago. The ends of justice would be served by upholding the conviction but reducing the sentence. However, the respondent requests that the conviction be affirmed so that the judgment serves as a precedent for future cases involving digital threats and criminal intimidation. The conviction is important for the message it sends — that threatening to publish private images is a serious offence, even if the images are never published.

For RespondentCriminal Premium

Threat to Upload Bathing Video Imputes Unchastity, Conviction Valid — (2026) INSC 525

The threat to upload a video of a woman bathing on social media imputes unchastity, violating her dignity and privacy under Article 21.

Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu — (2026) INSC 525

Core Argument

The threat to upload a video of a woman bathing on social media imputes unchastity, violating her dignity and privacy under Article 21. Non-recovery of the video is not fatal when the victim genuinely believed it existed and the threat was made. The acquittal for rape is irrelevant; each charge must be examined independently.

Key Precedents

Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39 — Constitution Bench struck down Section 497 IPC, rejecting the gendered approach to morality and affirming women's sexual autonomy.
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 — Constitution Bench recognised the fundamental right to privacy, including control over dissemination of personal information.
Anees v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) 15 SCC 48 — Held that once foundational facts are established, the burden shifts to the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

This framework covers the complete step-by-step argument structure, opening submissions, key precedents to cite, how to distinguish adverse cases, and the exact prayer to draft. Subscribe to access the full courtroom argument framework with precedent mapping...

Premium Argument FrameworkSubscribers Only

Subscribe to unlock the full argument structure — precedent mapping, bench questions, opposition rebuttals, and court-ready prayer clauses.

Already subscribed? Sign in

Argument SimulatorPaid Plans Only

BENCH QUESTION

What distinguishes this case from earlier precedents on the same point?

OPPOSITION COUNTER

The ratio in this case was expressly limited to its facts by the bench itself...

Unlock the Argument Simulator

4 probable bench questions with suggested answers.
4 opposition counters with rebuttal strategies.

Available on Monthly, Annual, 2-Year & 3-Year plans.

Subscribe to Unlock →

Simulated Content — Not Legal Advice: This courtroom argument and all associated bench questions, judicial responses, and simulator outputs are entirely simulated and hypothetical, created for educational and professional training purposes only. They do not represent actual court proceedings, real judicial opinions, or the positions of any judge or party. Do not cite or use this content in any court, tribunal, or legal proceeding without independent verification and adaptation by a qualified advocate. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in