My private photos or videos have been leaked online. What should I do in the first hour?

Do four things, in this order. First, do not contact the person who posted it and do not pay anyone demanding money — payment almost always leads to further demands, and it destroys the leverage you have. Second, preserve evidence: screenshot the page including the full URL and the visible date, and save the link itself. Do not delete anything from your own phone or accounts, even messages you are ashamed of, because they establish that the content was private and shared in confidence. Third, report it to the platform immediately through its own reporting route — that starts a statutory clock, which matters even if you engage us later. Fourth, contact us on +91-93547-47487. Our initial assessment on this category is within the hour, not within a working day. Nothing you tell us goes further, and an NDA is executed before any detailed case discussion.

How quickly can leaked intimate content actually be taken down?

The legal deadline is 24 hours. Rule 3(2)(b) of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 requires an intermediary to remove or disable access to content within twenty-four hours of receiving a complaint from the affected individual, where the material exposes a private area, shows full or partial nudity, depicts a sexual act, or is impersonation in electronic form including artificially morphed images. This is the shortest removal timeline anywhere in Indian content law — an ordinary defamatory article carries a 36-hour clock and a court-order route that can run for weeks. Practically, compliant platforms and mainstream hosts act inside that window. Non-compliant and offshore hosts take longer and need escalation, which is why we run these as a sweep rather than a single notice.

Which laws apply when someone shares my private images without consent?

Several apply at once, which is what makes this category enforceable. IT Rules 2021 Rule 3(2)(b) gives the 24-hour removal obligation. Section 66E of the IT Act 2000 makes capturing, publishing or transmitting images of a private area without consent punishable with up to three years imprisonment. Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act cover publishing obscene and sexually explicit material electronically, with 67A carrying up to five years on first conviction. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, voyeurism and stalking provisions apply to the person who captured or circulated the material. Where the content sits behind a search result, the Right to Be Forgotten and privacy jurisprudence supports de-indexing separately from removal at the host. You do not need all of these to succeed — you need the right one for each platform.

The content has been copied to several sites. Can all of it be removed, or only the original?

All of it is the objective, and it is the reason this work is handled as a sweep rather than as one notice. Leaked material mirrors quickly — a single video is typically reposted across aggregator sites, tube sites, file hosts, Telegram channels and sometimes a throwaway blog, each with a different host, jurisdiction and reporting route. We map the full spread first, including copies you have not found, and then work the whole set in parallel with the host, the CDN, the domain registrar and the search engines. Removing only the copy you know about is the most common mistake in this category, because the remaining mirrors re-seed the search results within days.

Do I have to file a police complaint or an FIR before you can act?

No. Removal under the IT Rules is a civil route and runs on a complaint from you as the affected individual, not on a police report. We can begin the same day without an FIR. That said, an FIR is often worth filing in parallel where you want the person responsible identified or prosecuted, and it strengthens escalation against a host that ignores the civil route. We will tell you plainly when we think an FIR helps your case and when it only adds delay and exposure. The decision stays yours.

Will my name become public if I take action?

Not through the removal route. Notices to platforms under Rule 3(2)(b) are made on your behalf by the partner law firm and are not published anywhere. Indian courts also restrict publication of the identity of victims in this category, and where proceedings are filed, anonymisation can be sought at the outset. The fear of being named is the single most common reason people leave this content up for months, and it is worth knowing that the fear is largely misplaced: the removal route is confidential by design. What we cannot control is a person who already knows and chooses to talk.

The images are morphed or AI-generated. Does that change anything?

It strengthens your position rather than weakening it. Rule 3(2)(b) expressly covers impersonation in electronic form, "including artificially morphed images of such individual", so a deepfake or a face-swapped image falls inside the same 24-hour obligation as a genuine photograph. You do not have to prove the image is real to have it removed — and you should never feel obliged to discuss whether it is. In practice, morphed content is often easier to action, because the platform does not have to weigh a consent question.

Can you remove it from Google as well as from the website hosting it?

Yes, and both are necessary. Removal at the host deletes the file; de-indexing removes the search result that leads people to it. If only the host acts, cached copies and the search listing can persist; if only Google acts, the content stays live for anyone with the link. We pursue both in parallel and verify each. Google additionally operates a dedicated removal route for non-consensual explicit imagery which does not require a court order, and we use it alongside the statutory notice rather than instead of it.

What if the website is hosted outside India?

Offshore hosting slows things down but does not put the content out of reach. Indian rules bind any intermediary offering services in India, and the largest platforms comply regardless of where they are incorporated. For genuinely non-compliant offshore sites, the routes that work are the host and upstream provider rather than the site operator, the CDN in front of it, the domain registrar, payment processors where the site is commercial, and de-indexing so the material is no longer findable even while it remains live. We will tell you honestly at assessment which of your URLs sit in this harder category, before you pay anything.

The content is circulating on Telegram and WhatsApp. Can that be stopped?

Partly, and we will not overstate it. Telegram channels and bots can be reported and removed, and we do that, but the platform is slower and less consistent than mainstream hosts. WhatsApp is end-to-end encrypted, so no one can delete a message already sitting on someone else's phone. What can be done is removing the public distribution points that feed the private sharing — the channels, the links, the hosted files — so the material stops spreading and stops being findable. Anyone who promises to delete content from private phones is not being straight with you.

Can I do any of this myself for free?

Yes, and you should start it today whether or not you engage anyone. Google operates a free removal request for non-consensual explicit imagery. Every major platform has a reporting route for this category, and those routes trigger the same statutory 24-hour clock we rely on. StopNCII.org lets adults create a digital hash of an image so participating platforms can block it being uploaded, without you ever sending the image itself. We tell every caller this before discussing fees. What we add is scale and escalation: finding the copies you cannot, running dozens of routes in parallel, and moving to notices under advocate signature and to court when a host ignores the free route. If your matter is one URL on one cooperative platform, say so and we will tell you to use the free route.

What does removal of leaked photos or videos cost?

This category is quoted as a sweep rather than per URL, because the same file is typically mirrored across many hosts and a per-URL price would be both punitive and misleading. We map the full spread first and quote against it, so you know the number before committing. Standard published rates apply where the matter is genuinely a small number of URLs on mainstream platforms. Fees are payable in advance and are refunded in full for anything not removed within the timeline agreed for it — including where a host simply refuses, because that is our risk to carry rather than yours.

What happens if the content is re-uploaded after it is removed?

Re-uploading is normal in this category and the engagement is built around it rather than ending at the first takedown. Where the same URL reappears after a confirmed removal, we address it as a continuation at no additional charge. Where the material surfaces at a new URL, monitoring is what catches it — we watch the known spread and the search results for re-emergence and act on it rather than waiting for you to find it. Hash-based blocking through StopNCII is worth doing in parallel because it prevents some re-uploads from ever completing.

Who at RepuLex will see my photos or videos?

As few people as possible, and never more than the work requires. We do not need you to send us the content itself to begin — URLs are enough, and URLs are what we work from. Where the material must be reviewed to prepare a notice, it is handled by the case lead and the advocate at the partner law firm, under an NDA executed before any detailed discussion, and it is not circulated internally, stored on personal devices or used in any case study, testimonial or marketing material. You may ask us at any point to confirm in writing what we hold and to delete it.

What if the person in the images is under 18?

Then it is not a reputation matter and we will not treat it as one. Sexual content involving a minor is child sexual abuse material, and the correct route is an immediate report to the police and to the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal at cybercrime.gov.in, which has a dedicated reporting category for it. Reporting is a legal obligation, not a choice, and it takes priority over any removal engagement. We will help you make that report and will pursue removal and de-indexing alongside it, but we will not accept an instruction to handle such content quietly instead of reporting it.

What legal routes does RepuLex use to remove content?

We use multiple legal routes depending on the content and platform: (1) IT Act 2000 Section 79 — removes safe harbour from platforms upon valid takedown notice; (2) IT (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules 2021 — mandates 36-hour response from significant social media platforms; (3) IPC Sections 499/500 — criminal defamation provisions requiring content removal; (4) DMCA takedown for US-hosted content; (5) High Court injunctions where platforms are non-compliant.

Do you need a court order to remove content?

Not always. Many removals are achieved through formal IT Act notices and legal notices alone — without going to court. Court orders are pursued when platforms refuse to comply with notices, when the content is particularly damaging and warrants an injunction, or when the originator needs to be legally restrained.

What happens if the platform refuses to remove the content?

If a platform does not comply with our formal legal notice within the mandated period, we escalate to court proceedings — at no additional charge under our standard plans. We file for an injunction in the appropriate High Court, which creates a binding legal obligation on the platform's Indian operations.

Can you remove content even if it was posted anonymously?

Yes. Anonymous content is handled through platform legal disclosure requests. Under Indian law and platform policies, we can compel platforms to disclose originator information in defamation cases. In parallel, we can get the content removed regardless of whether the originator's identity is disclosed.

What is the IT Act Section 79 and why does it matter?

Section 79 of the IT Act 2000 provides "safe harbour" to intermediaries (platforms) from liability for third-party content — but only while they act as neutral conduits. Once we issue a valid takedown notice, the safe harbour is removed. The platform must then either remove the content or face liability. This compels most platforms to act within 36 hours.

What is the IT (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules 2021?

The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 impose mandatory obligations on significant social media intermediaries — platforms with 5 million+ Indian users. They must appoint grievance officers, process takedown requests within 36–72 hours for specified content types, and provide monthly compliance reports. We use these rules to force rapid response.

Can you remove a court judgement or legal document that appears online?

Court judgements in the public domain are legally published documents and generally cannot be removed from official legal databases. However, if a judgement appears on a third-party portal or news site with additional defamatory commentary, or if the judgement itself is being misrepresented, we can target those specific URLs and contexts.

Can you remove content from archived or cached versions?

Yes. Our process includes filing Google Cache removal requests, Wayback Machine removal notices under their guidelines, and CDN cache clearance. For platforms, we ensure the content is removed from the live URL and de-indexed from all major search engines.

What is the Right to Be Forgotten in India?

The Right to Be Forgotten (RTbF) is an evolving legal concept in India, increasingly recognised by courts following the EU's GDPR model. It allows individuals to request removal of outdated, irrelevant, or false personal information from search results. RepuLex files RTbF-based petitions before the appropriate courts and directly with platforms where applicable.

What is the actual difference between removal and suppression?

Suppression leaves the content live and tries to outrank it. An agency publishes profiles, articles and directory listings until the damaging result slides to page two. Three things follow. It is rented: stop paying and the content climbs back, because nothing about it has changed. It does not work on a determined searcher, who will scroll. And it is close to useless against AI answer engines, which synthesise from the sources they trust rather than reading page one — a single defamatory article can dominate what ChatGPT says about you no matter how much positive content surrounds it. Removal deletes the content at source and removes the search result. Once it is gone there is nothing to suppress, nothing to maintain and nothing to resurface.

Can content be removed if what it says is actually true?

Sometimes, but not on the basis that it is defamatory — truth is a defence, and we will not argue otherwise. Other grounds exist and are often the right ones. The Right to Be Forgotten can apply where a matter has concluded and continued publication no longer serves a public interest, which is the usual route for old reporting on a case that ended in acquittal, discharge or settlement. Privacy grounds apply where the material was private regardless of accuracy, which covers the whole leaked-content category. Inaccuracy grounds apply where the reporting was true when published but is now materially misleading — a report of an arrest with no mention of the acquittal that followed. What does not work is asking a publisher to delete accurate reporting on a live matter because it is embarrassing. We will tell you that before taking a fee.

What is IT Act Section 69A and does it apply to my case?

Section 69A empowers the Central Government to direct blocking of content in the interests of sovereignty, security, public order and related grounds. It is a government power, not a private remedy — you cannot invoke it for a defamatory article about your business, and any agency implying it can get your content blocked under 69A is misdescribing what it does. The provisions that carry private matters are Section 79 with the IT Rules 2021, which impose takedown obligations on intermediaries, and Sections 66E, 67 and 67A for privacy and explicit-content offences. We mention 69A only because it is frequently cited loosely in this industry.

How long does a High Court injunction take, and when is it worth pursuing?

Timelines vary by court and by how urgent the matter is on its facts, so anyone quoting you a fixed number is guessing. Genuinely urgent matters — ongoing publication of private material, an imminent transaction — can be moved quickly and interim relief is sometimes granted at the first hearing. Ordinary defamation matters run considerably longer. Court is worth pursuing when a platform has ignored valid notices, when you need the originator restrained rather than just the content removed, or when an order is the only thing a particular host will act on. It is not worth pursuing as a first step, which is why most of our removals conclude without one. Court costs are quoted separately from removal fees and are the client's.

What do you need from me to start?

Less than most people expect. To assess a matter we need the URLs and a short account of what is false, private or out of date about them. That is enough for us to tell you whether it is removable, by which route, and at what cost. To act, we need your written instruction and, where the ground is the Right to Be Forgotten or inaccuracy, whatever document establishes it — a closure report, discharge or acquittal order, quashing order, clean chit or recorded settlement. That document is usually decisive, and its absence is usually why a matter fails. We do not require supporting documents before starting work, but we will tell you plainly when a matter cannot succeed without one.

Do you send a legal notice to the person who posted the content?

Yes, where the originator is identifiable. We issue a cease-and-desist notice and, in stronger cases, initiate criminal defamation proceedings under IPC Section 500 which carries a two-year imprisonment provision. This creates immediate pressure for retraction and public apology in addition to content removal.

Can content be removed if what it says is true?

Usually not on defamation grounds, and we will tell you so at assessment rather than after taking a fee. Truth is a defence to defamation in India, so a factually accurate report is not removable simply because it is damaging. Other grounds may still exist and are worth testing: the Right to Be Forgotten where proceedings have concluded or the reporting has become stale, privacy where the material concerns your private life rather than any public interest, inaccuracy where the report is materially wrong even if broadly true, and consent where images or data were published without it. Where none of those apply, the honest answer is that the content stays and the work shifts to what ranks around it. An agency that tells you every true article is removable is selling you a refund cycle.

What is the difference between removal and suppression, in practice?

Suppression is publishing enough new material that the damaging result falls to the second page. The content is untouched: it is still live, still indexed, still reachable by anyone with the link, and still available to an AI answer engine, which does not read page two but does read sources. It also requires a permanent monthly retainer, because the moment the spend stops the ranking reverts. Removal deletes the content at the host and de-indexes the search result, so there is nothing left to resurface and nothing to keep paying for. The test that separates them is simple: after the engagement ends, does the article still exist? With suppression the answer is always yes.

How long does a court route take, and when is it worth it?

A High Court injunction application is typically heard in weeks rather than days, and an interim order can issue at the first effective hearing where the case is strong. It is worth it when a platform has ignored or refused a valid statutory notice, when the originator needs to be restrained from posting again rather than merely having one URL taken down, or when the content is severe enough that an order is needed to reach a search engine directly. It is not worth it for a single low-traffic listing, where the cost and timeline exceed the harm. We treat court as the escalation behind the notice, not the opening move, because most removals conclude without it.

What is Section 69A and does it apply to my case?

Section 69A of the IT Act empowers the Central Government to direct blocking of content in the interests of sovereignty, defence, security, public order, or to prevent incitement of a cognisable offence. It is a government power, not a private remedy, so it is not a route an individual or company can invoke to remove commercially damaging content about itself. We mention it because it is frequently misdescribed in the market as something an agency can deploy on your behalf. It cannot. Your routes are the intermediary rules, defamation, privacy and the Right to Be Forgotten, and where those fail, the court.

What do you need from me to start?

Less than most people expect. To assess a matter we need the URLs and a short account of what is wrong with them — false, private, stale, or published without consent. That is enough to tell you which are removable and on what ground, before any money changes hands. To act, we additionally need your written authority to represent you, and whatever supporting document underpins the ground being used: a closure report or discharge for a Right to Be Forgotten claim, evidence of the inaccuracy for an inaccuracy claim, or proof of identity where the content concerns you personally. We do not need access to your website, your accounts, or your passwords, and you should be wary of any reputation agency that asks for them.

What happens if I lose — is there any risk of the case backfiring?

It is a fair question and the honest answer is that the risk is small but real, and it is one we manage rather than pretend away. The two genuine risks are the Streisand effect, where litigation attracts more attention to the content than it had, and a publisher choosing to report on the fact that removal was sought. Both are far more likely with a public court filing than with a confidential representation, which is one reason the notice route is attempted first and court is treated as escalation. Where we think a matter carries a meaningful backfire risk, we say so before you engage and sometimes advise against acting at all. Removal is not free of downside, and any agency claiming otherwise has not run enough of these.

How much does RepuLex charge for content removal?

RepuLex charges ₹99,999 per link removal (single URL). Package pricing: Starter Shield at ₹2,49,999 for 3 links, Business Clear at ₹7,49,999 for 10 links, and Corporate Vault at custom pricing for 25+ links. Emergency fast-track carries a 50% premium. All prices are exclusive of 18% GST. These rates cover standard-complexity removals; news media and court-reported matters are quoted separately, from ₹1,00,000 per URL.

Why do international white-collar crime and scam matters carry a surcharge?

Because almost nothing that makes Indian removals fast applies to them. Coverage of cross-border fraud, financial crime and scam allegations typically sits on foreign news sites, offshore hosts, regulator and enforcement listings, and scam-alert and warning databases — none of which are intermediaries under the IT Rules 2021, so the statutory notice route and its deadlines simply do not reach them. The work becomes multi-jurisdictional: foreign counsel, different defamation standards, and platforms that answer to a regulator rather than to a takedown request. These matters carry a 50% surcharge on the applicable rate, the same premium as emergency handling, and are quoted after assessment rather than from the published packages. We will also tell you where the answer is that a listing cannot be removed at all — a regulator or enforcement notice generally cannot, and no fee changes that.

Do the published package rates cover news articles?

No. The published packages cover standard-complexity removals — platform content, blogs, business directories, forums, classifieds and review sites. Reporting carried by mainstream national and regional mastheads, coverage of investigations and criminal matters, and judgment listings on legal databases form a separate band, quoted from ₹1,00,000 per URL. That work goes to editorial and legal desks rather than takedown forms, on Right to be Forgotten, inaccuracy or privacy grounds, with a court order as the route where a desk declines. Volume rates apply from 10 URLs. Send us the URLs and we will tell you which band applies before you pay anything.

Why is the charge ₹99,999 per link?

Each removal involves senior legal counsel review, formal notice drafting, platform legal engagement, court filing if needed, and documentation. Unlike SEO suppression which is automated and cheap, legal removal is counsel-intensive. The fee reflects the permanence — you pay once for a removal that does not reappear.

What is the payment structure?

The fee is payable in full in advance, before work begins. That is what allows senior counsel to be committed to the matter from day one rather than after it escalates. Your protection is the refund commitment rather than a withheld balance: if we do not achieve removal within the timeline agreed for a URL, the fee for that URL is refunded on written request. For engagements where the legal work is executed by our partner law firm, the fee is paid into the law firm's account and the refund is released from there.

FAQ

50 questions.
Straight answers.

Everything you need to know about legal content removal, our process, pricing, timelines, and confidentiality — answered without marketing language.

About RepuLex

10 questions

01What is RepuLex and how is it different from other ORM agencies?

RepuLex is India's leading full-spectrum reputation management agency, built legal-first. Most ORM agencies sell suppression — creating positive content to push a negative result onto page two, for a fee that never stops. RepuLex removes the content itself, using the IT Act 2000, defamation law, the Right to Be Forgotten and court orders where needed. Around that flagship sits the complete suite: executive and corporate reputation, crisis management, negative-news de-indexing, Wikipedia and Knowledge Panel work, AI reputation management, digital PR and monitoring. The distinction that matters is permanence — suppressed content is still there and returns when you stop paying; removed content is gone from the platform and from the index.

02Is RepuLex a law firm or a digital marketing agency?

Neither, and the distinction is worth understanding before you engage anyone in this category. RepuLex is a reputation management agency. It is not a law firm and does not hold itself out as one. The regulated legal work on an engagement — notices issued under advocate signature, court filings, appearances — is executed by our partner law firm, Unified Chambers And Associates, whose advocates are Bar Council registered. We are also not a digital marketing agency: we do not sell SEO retainers, social media management or content marketing. An agency that tells you it is a law firm, or a law firm that markets removal like a subscription, is worth a second look.

03Who actually does the legal work on my case?

Bar Council-registered advocates at our partner law firm, Unified Chambers And Associates. RepuLex runs the case — assessment, mapping the spread of the content, platform routes, negotiation with publishers, monitoring and reporting. Anything that constitutes the practice of law is done by the firm: the notice goes out under an advocate's signature, and any filing or appearance is theirs. On engagements where the legal route is central, fees are paid into the law firm's account rather than ours, and any refund is released from there. RepuLex also has a Legal Advisory Board that includes Advocate Subodh Bajpai of the Delhi High Court in an advisory capacity.

04Do you only remove content, or do you manage reputation more broadly?

Both, though removal is the flagship and the reason most clients arrive. The wider suite covers executive and corporate reputation programmes, online crisis management, negative-news management and de-indexing, Wikipedia page management, Google Knowledge Panel work, AI reputation management for what ChatGPT and Gemini say about you, digital PR and authority building, and continuous monitoring. In practice the work is usually sequenced: remove what is false and removable, then build and monitor what should rank in its place. Removal without anything behind it leaves a vacuum; content-building without removal leaves the problem live underneath.

05What does RepuLex refuse to do?

We do not write or buy fake reviews, and we do not run review-generation schemes — both are deceptive and, under the Consumer Protection Act, unlawful. We do not sell SEO suppression as a substitute for removal, because the content stays live and returns when the retainer stops. We do not take on the removal of true, lawfully published reporting simply because a client finds it inconvenient; where the reporting is accurate and the proceedings are live, we say so and decline. We do not handle content involving minors as a reputation matter — that goes to the police. And we do not tell clients a matter is winnable when it is not, which is why our refund returns the fee rather than offering more work in its place.

06Has RepuLex been covered in the press?

Yes — across 2026, RepuLex has been featured in national publications including NewsX, Business Standard, The Print, Tribune India, ANI, Ahmedabad Mirror, The Daily Guardian, First India, Lokmat Times and Latestly, covering the emergence of legal-first reputation management as a distinct category in India. The full set with links is at /press. We publish it because in this category you should be able to verify what an agency claims about itself before you send money, and because press coverage is one of the few claims a prospect can check independently.

07Can I speak to a past client before engaging?

Generally no, and the reason is the same reason you would hire us. Nearly every client comes to us over material they want no one to know existed — a leaked video, an investigation, a defamatory allegation. Putting them on a call with a stranger to vouch for us would defeat the confidentiality we sold them. What we can share instead is an anonymised case report showing publications, outcomes and the proportion actioned, with identities and URLs stripped. If an agency in this category readily hands you client references, it is worth asking what it tells its clients about you.

08Where is RepuLex based?

RepuLex is headquartered in New Delhi, India, with a network of 1,000+ legal counsels covering all 25 major High Court jurisdictions across India. We handle cases from every state and every major city.

09How long has RepuLex been operating?

RepuLex was founded in 2024 and has since handled 2,400+ content removal cases with a 97% success rate. Our founding team brings combined decades of experience in IT law, defamation practice, and digital platforms.

10Does RepuLex handle cases outside India?

Our legal jurisdiction is India, and we operate under Indian law (IT Act 2000, IPC, High Court orders). However, because most platforms — Google, Meta, X, YouTube — are US-incorporated, we also use DMCA notices and international platform legal channels. For content on Indian portals affecting overseas Indians, we handle those cases.

All Topics

Didn't find your answer?

Send us the URL. We assess, recommend, and quote — free, within 4 hours.

Free Consultation +91-93547-47487

50 questions.Straight answers.

About RepuLex

Didn't find your answer?

50 questions.
Straight answers.