How can courts and police be made more responsive to online gender abuse without curbing free speech?

The IT Rules, 2021 already require intermediaries to remove morphed or intimate imagery within 24 hours of a complaint [1], yet the Delhi High Court had to direct Meta in September 2026 to pull down a morphed photograph of a woman [2]. The deficit is one of responsiveness, not of more restriction.

Why responsiveness falls short today

• The 24-hour duty is only due diligence; ignoring it invites no penalty, merely later loss of safe harbour under Section 79 in litigation [1] — so the victim bears the enforcement cost.
• Shreya Singhal (2015) read down Section 79(3)(b): "actual knowledge" arises from a court or government order, not a private complaint [3].
• Rule 4 automated matching catches only content identical to what was removed [1]; a cropped re-upload escapes.

Making courts more responsive

• Treat a completed MeitY NCII SOP complaint as "actual knowledge", opening the three-hour removal lane to victims, not only the State [4][1].
• Strengthen and publicise Grievance Appellate Committees — 1,065 appeals filed and 937 disposed up to June 2024 [5] — as a free alternative to litigation.
• Extend a single order to future re-uploads of the same image, sparing repeat petitions.

Making police more responsive

• Fixed internal timelines for evidence-preservation requests to platforms before the upload trail is deleted.
• Proceed against circulators, not only the host, as the Court did by issuing notice to those alleged to have spread the image [2].
• Use traceability and labelling duties for synthetically generated content under the 2026 Amendment Rules to identify creators [6].

Safeguards that protect speech

• Confine the fast lane to non-consensual and morphed intimate imagery, a class the Rules already separate [1]; retain reasoned, reviewable process for political speech.
• The 2025 amendment to Rule 3(1)(d) mandates transparency, proportionality and accountability in takedowns [7].

Speed for victims and deliberation for speech are compatible if the law distinguishes categories of harm rather than diluting due process across the board. Victim-facing procedure, trained investigation and published appellate data together advance both Article 21 dignity and Article 19(1)(a) freedoms — an "open, safe and trusted internet" in substance, not slogan.