Section 66E of the IT Act: Punishment, Bailable or Not, and How It Is Used

Section 66E of the IT Act, 2000: the text

The Explanation to the section defines five terms. "Capture", with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film or record by any means. "Transmit" means to electronically send a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons. "Publishes" means reproduction in the printed or electronic form and making it available for public. "Private area" means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast.

The fifth definition carries most of the weight. "Under circumstances violating privacy" means circumstances in which a person can have a reasonable expectation that he or she could disrobe in privacy without being concerned that an image of the private area was being captured, or that any part of his or her private area would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place.

The section therefore has five elements: an image of a private area; capture, publication or transmission of it; no consent; circumstances violating privacy; and intention or knowledge. It protects "any person", men and women alike. It applies in a trial room or a public washroom as fully as at home. And because "transmit" includes sending an image to one person, a clip sent in a single private message is covered without ever being made public.

Punishment under Section 66E

The punishment is imprisonment which may extend to three years, or a fine not exceeding ₹2 lakh, or both. There is no minimum term, so a court may impose a fine alone, and unlike Sections 67, 67A and 67B there is no higher term for a second conviction.

Because capture, publication and transmission are each named, a person who records secretly and later shares the recording has done more than one forbidden act. A complaint should describe each act separately, with dates and the platform or chat where it happened.

Section 66E is often the lightest provision on the facts. A video showing a sexual act also attracts Section 67A, with up to five years on a first conviction, and where the victim is a woman, Section 77 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) carries a minimum of one year. Offences under the IT Act are investigated by a police officer not below the rank of Inspector (Section 78, as amended in 2008). A conviction punishes the offender; removing the copies runs on a separate track, described at the end of this guide.

Is Section 66E bailable or not? Cognizable or not?

Section 66E is cognizable and bailable. The source is Section 77B of the IT Act, which provides that, notwithstanding the Code of Criminal Procedure, "the offence punishable with imprisonment of three years and above shall be cognizable and the offence punishable with imprisonment of three years shall be bailable." Section 66E carries up to three years, so it sits in both classes.

Cognizable means the police can register an FIR and investigate without a magistrate's order, and can arrest without a warrant, so the victim goes straight to the police rather than to a court. Bailable means the accused has a right to bail; it does not mean the offence is minor or that the case will be dropped.

The classification follows the term for a first conviction, and the table below applies it on that basis. Section 67, with three years on a first conviction, is also cognizable and bailable. Sections 67A and 67B carry five years; they are cognizable, and because Section 77B makes only three-year offences bailable, they are non-bailable, which means bail is at the court's discretion rather than a right.

Section 77A lets a court compound offences under the Act that carry three years or less, but not where the offence "has been committed against a child below the age of 18 years or a woman". A Section 66E case in which the victim is a woman therefore cannot be closed by compounding.

Section 66E, 67, 67A and 67B: which applies to what

Section 66E asks whose body is shown and whether that person consented. Sections 67, 67A and 67B ask what the material is: obscene (lascivious, or appealing to the prurient interest), sexually explicit, or depicting children under 18 in sexually explicit acts. Section 67B also reaches creating, collecting, browsing and downloading such material, and enticing children into online sexual relationships.

Consent is an element only of Section 66E. Sections 67 and 67A punish publication or transmission of the material itself, so a leaked intimate video commonly engages Section 66E for the breach of privacy and Section 67A for the explicit content. The proviso for material in the interest of science, literature, art or learning, or kept for bona fide heritage or religious purposes, does not describe a leaked private clip.

This is why Section 66E alone does not fit a face-swap morph. In a morph the body is someone else's and only the victim's face is used; a face is not a "private area" under the Act, and the private area shown is not the victim's. Sections 67 and 67A turn on the nature of the material rather than whose body appears, so they are cited alongside, with BNS Section 356 on defamation and Section 336(4) on forgery to harm reputation (up to three years and fine). For removal, Rule 3(2)(b) of the IT Rules 2021 expressly covers artificially morphed images.

Anything involving a person under 18 is child sexual abuse material under Section 67B and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. It goes to the police and cybercrime.gov.in only. Because Section 67B reaches downloading and browsing, a parent or friend should not collect copies as evidence; note the links and let the police secure the material.

Is there a Section 66E in the BNS? Section 77, and where Section 356 fits

No. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita replaced the Indian Penal Code from 1 July 2024, not the IT Act, so Section 66E is still in force. The nearest BNS provision is Section 77, voyeurism (formerly IPC 354C). It punishes whoever "watches, or captures the image of a woman engaging in a private act in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed", or disseminates such an image: one to three years and fine on a first conviction, three to seven years and fine on a later one.

Explanation 1 defines a private act to include watching in a place expected to provide privacy where the victim's genitals, posterior or breasts are exposed or covered only in underwear, use of a lavatory, and a sexual act not ordinarily done in public. Explanation 2 provides that where the victim consents to the capture of the images "but not to their dissemination to third persons", the dissemination "shall be considered an offence under this section". It closes the argument that a woman who agreed to be filmed also agreed to the film being shared.

Section 77 differs from Section 66E in three ways: it protects only women, though the offender can be anyone; it carries a minimum term of one year; and under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), a first conviction under it is cognizable and bailable, and a second or later conviction cognizable and non-bailable.

Section 356, defamation, fits where the images come with false statements, such as an invented caption or a morph passed off as genuine. It carries simple imprisonment of up to two years, or fine, or both, or community service. Under the BNSS First Schedule it is non-cognizable and bailable, triable by a Magistrate of the first class, and under BNSS Section 222(1) a court takes cognizance only on a complaint by the person aggrieved. It therefore runs as a private complaint alongside the cognizable sections, not in place of them.

Is revenge porn illegal in India?

Yes, although Indian law has no offence called revenge porn. The conduct the phrase describes, usually a former partner publishing intimate images to punish or humiliate, is punishable under Section 66E of the IT Act, under Sections 67 and 67A where the material is obscene or sexually explicit, and, where the victim is a woman, under Section 77 of the BNS.

The line victims hear most is "you sent it yourself". It does not answer the law. On the wording of Section 66E, consent is tested against the act charged, and capture, publication and transmission are separate acts; circumstances violating privacy include a reasonable expectation that a private area "would not be visible to the public". For women, Explanation 2 to BNS Section 77 says it in terms: consent to capture is not consent to dissemination.

Motive is not an element. Section 66E requires intention or knowledge, not revenge, so the sections apply whether the images were posted in anger, for money or as a supposed joke. Where they are used as a threat to extract money, more images or a return to the relationship, BNS Section 308 (extortion, up to seven years, or fine, or both) and Section 351 (criminal intimidation) also apply; the sextortion guide linked below covers that situation.

Is sharing a private video without consent a crime in India?

Yes. Sharing someone's private video without consent is a crime in India under Section 66E of the IT Act, 2000, which punishes publishing or transmitting an image of a person's private area without consent, in circumstances violating privacy, with up to three years' imprisonment, a fine of up to ₹2 lakh, or both. If the person is a woman, BNS Section 77 also applies, and its Explanation 2 makes dissemination an offence even if she agreed to the recording. If the video shows a sexual act, Section 67A applies too: up to five years and a fine of up to ₹10 lakh on a first conviction. If anyone in it is under 18, it is child sexual abuse material under Section 67B and the POCSO Act 2012, and a matter for the police.

Liability is not confined to the first uploader. Sections 67 and 67A reach whoever "publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted" the material, and "transmit" in Section 66E covers sending an image to one person. Someone who knowingly forwards the clip into a group or a private chat is doing what the sections forbid, and a closed group is no answer, because transmission does not require publication to the public.

Section 66E cases: how courts have approached it

This guide cites only authorities it has read. None of the three below is a trial judgment on Section 66E alone, but together they shape how a complaint is handled.

In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1, the Supreme Court held that privacy is a fundamental right. That is the constitutional background to Section 66E's test of "circumstances violating privacy".

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 is often confused with this section: the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A, on offensive messages, not Section 66E, which was not in issue and remains in force. The same judgment read "actual knowledge" in Section 79 as a court order or a government notification, so a private notice does not by itself strip a platform of safe harbour. For intimate images, the complaint route under Rule 3(2)(b), with its own two-hour deadline, fills that gap.

In Mrs X v. Union of India, W.P.(Crl.) 1505/2021, judgment of 26 April 2023, the Delhi High Court issued directions to platforms, search engines and the police on prompt action against non-consensual intimate images. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology's Standard Operating Procedure of November 2025, issued in line with the Madras High Court's directions in WP 25017/2025, lists the channels a victim can use and requires significant social media intermediaries to use hash and crawler technology and search engines to de-index. Its removal window predates the February 2026 amendment; the statutory deadline is now two hours.

When reading any judgment described as a Section 66E case, check which section the order actually rests on. A complaint can invoke several sections, the police decide which to register, and the charge a court later frames may be narrower.

How Section 66E fits a removal: the two-hour lane

Prosecution and removal are separate tracks, and removal does not wait for an FIR. Rule 3(2)(b) of the IT Rules 2021, as amended by G.S.R. 120(E) with effect from 20 February 2026, requires a platform to remove or disable access, within two hours of a complaint by the individual or someone on their behalf, to content that exposes a person's private area, shows full or partial nudity or a sexual act, or impersonates a person, including artificially morphed images. The rule borrows Section 66E's own term, "private area".

The official routes: save every URL with screenshots showing the date, time and posting account; complain to each platform's grievance officer or reporting channel under Rule 3(2)(b); use Google's "Remove personal sexual content from Google Search" form for search results; and, for someone who is 18 or over now and was when the image was taken, use StopNCII.org, which hashes images on the person's own device so that partner platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X, Reddit and Pornhub can block matching uploads. Telegram, Google Search, YouTube and WhatsApp are not StopNCII partners. A grievance officer's refusal can be appealed to the Grievance Appellate Committee at www.gac.gov.in.

The criminal complaint is the victim's own step: on cybercrime.gov.in, which has a category for crimes against women and children and lets you report without identifying yourself; on the 1930 helpline; or at any police station, because under BNSS Section 173(1) information about a cognizable offence may be given irrespective of where it was committed (the Zero FIR), and information given electronically is taken on record once the informant signs it within three days. Name Sections 66E, 67 and 67A of the IT Act and, for a woman, BNS Section 77.

If anyone in the material is under 18, none of the removal steps above is for the victim or family to run. It is child sexual abuse material under Section 67B and the POCSO Act 2012: report it to the police and on cybercrime.gov.in, and do not use StopNCII.

RepuLex, an online reputation management agency, runs the removal side of adult matters as a paid sweep. On the first day it files the Rule 3(2)(b) complaints and the Google Search request and sets up StopNCII hashing with the person on their own device, then traces mirrors, re-uploads and search results. Where a platform does not act, legal notices and court applications are handled by its partner law firm, Unified Chambers And Associates. Concessional rates are available for individuals; no outcome can be promised, because platforms and courts decide; and RepuLex does not take any matter involving a person under 18.