Justices Anand Venkatesh and KK Ramakrishnan issued the appeal in English, Tamil, and Hindi while dismissing an appeal of a man convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in a case of rape and sexual assault.

The judges, presiding at the Madurai bench of the High Court, said they were issuing the appeal or advisory in the interest of both those disproportionately targeted and society more broadly, given the rise in technology. They urged them to exercise vigilance in the digital world

The bench said a moment of misplaced trust should never become a lifetime of suffering. It regretted that time constraints prevented translating the appeal into every regional language. “No matter how deep the affection, trust, or promise of confidentiality may appear, intimate photographs or videos should never be shared with anyone through electronic means.”

The court said once such material leaves one’s exclusive control, it can easily be misused, leading to irreversible consequences for the victim’s privacy, dignity, and mental well-being. “Prevention is always better than the arduous process of seeking legal redress after such trust has been betrayed. This court, therefore, respectfully urges every young girl and woman to exercise the utmost caution in safeguarding their privacy and dignity in the digital world.”

The court dismissed the convict’s appeal against his conviction and sentence to “life imprisonment until natural death.”

The prosecution said the convict contacted the victim through Facebook, gradually moved the conversation to WhatsApp, and lured her with false promises of marriage and employment. He took her to a secluded location, locked her inside a car, and sexually assaulted her. He secretly filmed the encounters and used the recordings to blackmail her into repeated submission over months.

The convict argued that the relationship was consensual. The court held that consent obtained through deception stands vitiated. It underlined the distinction between “consensual romantic relationships” and “relationships induced by deception”. The court tabulated the difference in a chart in its judgement for future cases.

The court dismissed the appeal after noting that investigators recovered roughly 355 obscene videos and over 1,000 photographs from the convict’s laptop, implicating dozens of victims. It referred to the psychological toll digital evidence takes on “judges, lawyers and investigating officers who must repeatedly view graphic material.”

The judges said that courts cannot expect legal professionals to remain unaffected merely because they occupy “professional” roles. They cited the ordeal of a woman investigating officer who sifted through 60 case files of explicit content.

The court called for mandatory psychological screening, counselling, staff rotation, and trauma-awareness training across the justice system. “It is time for judiciary and institutional leaders to confront this challenge candidly.”

The court called for institutional responses that protect those who carry the system through mandatory psychological screening, regular counselling, decompression protocols after exposure, rotation of personnel assigned to graphic material, training to recognise and respond to vicarious trauma, and secure facilities and procedures to minimise unnecessary exposure. “Such measures are not luxuries but they are essential to the integrity and sustainability of a justice system that still depends on human judgment.”