Criminal Intimidation, Digital Sexual Threats and Evolving Notions of Chastity: A Critical Analysis of the Supreme Court’s 2026 Decision on Section 506 IPC

 I. Introduction

The Supreme Court’s judgment VIJAYAKUMAR Vs STATE OF TAMIL NADU 2026 INSC 525 dated 22 May 2026, affirming the conviction of a police constable under Part II of Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), marks a significant doctrinal development in the law of criminal intimidation, reputation‑based harm, and the constitutional understanding of women’s sexual autonomy. The Court upheld the conviction for threatening to upload a secretly recorded bathing video of the prosecutrix on social media, while the same accused stood acquitted of rape, deceitful inducement of marriage and voyeurism under Sections 376, 493 and 354C IPC respectively. This separation of liability—acquittal on sexual offences but conviction on aggravated criminal intimidation—invites critical analysis for trial courts, appellate courts and scholars.

Print Page

Supreme Court Expands Meaning Of 'Unchastity', Says Threat To Leak Woman's Bathing Video Punishable Under S.506 IPC

The Court made the observation while upholding the conviction of a man under Part II of Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code for threatening to upload a woman's private bathing video on Facebook, holding that such conduct amounts to “imputing unchastity” to a woman within the meaning of the provision which penalises criminal intimidation.

…the act of video-recording the victim in a naked state while she was taking a bath and the threat to upload it on digital social media can be construed to be an act amounting to a threat to impute unchastity within the meaning of Part II of Section 506 IPC.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2859 OF 2025

VIJAYAKUMAR Vs STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED

BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE 

Author: NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 525

Dated: May 22, 2026.

Print Page

Whether husband is entitled to get decree of divorce if wife is making unfounded allegation of unchastity against him?

Section 20(2) of Hindu Marriage Act may be reproduced to
appreciate the contentions of the learned Advocate for the respondent.
“Section 20(2) The statements contained in every petition under this Act shall be
verified by the petitioner or some other competent person in the manner required by law for
the verification of plaints, and may, at the hearing, be referred to as evidence.” Therefore, in a
matrimonial suit the pleadings assume importance and, the Court may act upon on the basis of such
unfounded allegations in the pleadings treating the same as evidence. Section 20(2) of the Hindu
Marriage Act thus provides that pleadings may at times be accepted as evidence.
Admittedly the wife/appellant made disparaging remarks with regard to the character of the
husband/respondent to the extent that the husband has got sexual relationship with his own sister,
with the daughter of the sister of his father, with very many other girls and even with the wife of
some other person. These allegations have been levelled in the written statement as well as in the
additional written statement of the appellant/wife and she has categorically admitted during her
cross examination that she has made such allegations being aware of the contents there-of. In view of section 20(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act such allegations may safely be admitted
and accepted as evidence of the appellant/wife. These unfounded allegations against the
respondent/husband have not been proved by the Appellant/wife. A man of ordinary prudence
would definitely be humiliated in the estimation of his family members as well as his associations
in terms of such allegations. The holy relationship of brother and sister has been maligned by the
appellant/wife to such an extent that it definitely pricks to the conscience of the Court to accept that
the appellant/wife is guilty of treating the respondent/husband with mental cruelty. Moreover the
appellant/wife has also raised question about the chastity and character as well as the behaviour of
the mother of her husband and thereby has definitely made an indelible mark on the mind of the
husband/respondent. It would, therefore, be not only difficult for the respondent/husband to
swallow such filthy allegations but also impossible for him to continue his marital tie with the
appellant/wife.
The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and mutual respect between
husband and wife. It appears from the allegations levelled by the appellant/wife that she has had no
tolerance or adjustment towards her husband far to speak of respect. The wife/appellant has been
residing separately for last 22 years without any effort of re-union with the respondent/husband. In
such circumstances, it may safely be stated that such unfounded allegations with regard to the
character and chastity of the respondent/husband and his mother have had telling effect in the
disposal of the lis. In our considered view, the learned Trial Court was perfectly justified in relying
on the decision reported in AIR 2005 SC 534 to hold that decree of divorce may be granted wholly
on the ground of mental cruelty.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Appellate Side
P R E S E N T:-
The Hon’ble Justice Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
And
The Hon’ble Justice Debi Prosad Dey
 F.A. No. 312 of 2007

 Rita Bandopadhyay
 -vs-
 Abhik Bandopadhyay

Judgment delivered on : 15th June, 2015
Debi Prosad Dey, J.
Citation: 2016(6) ALLMR(JOURNAL)65

Print Page