The Supreme Court of India has clarified that taking photos or videos of a woman without her consent does not constitute voyeurism under Section 354C IPC unless she is engaged in a “private act”. Learn about the case, legal reasoning, and implications for criminal law.
Introduction
In a significant ruling clarifying the ambit of voyeurism under Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Supreme Court held that clicking a woman’s photos or recording her on a mobile phone without her consent does not automatically amount to voyeurism. The offence is attracted only if the woman is engaged in a “private act”—a legally defined term in criminal jurisprudence.
A Bench comprising Justices N. Kotiswar Singh and Manmohan upheld the Calcutta High Court’s decision to quash criminal charges against the accused, ruling that the essential ingredients of voyeurism were not satisfied.
Background of the Case
On March 19, 2020, the complainant lodged an FIR against the appellant–accused under Sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 354C (voyeurism), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC.
She alleged that on March 18, 2020, when she attempted to enter a particular property with her friend and accompanying workmen, the accused restrained them and began taking her photographs and video recordings without permission, which she claimed violated her privacy and outraged her modesty.
After investigation, the police filed a chargesheet on August 16, 2020, supporting the allegations.
High Court’s Findings Affirmed
The Calcutta High Court had earlier quashed the charges, holding that the conduct alleged did not meet the statutory requirements of voyeurism. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, noting that:
“The allegation of clicking pictures and making videos cannot be said to constitute an offence within the meaning of Section 354C IPC.”
The Court emphasised that the complainant was not engaged in a “private act”, which is a necessary element of the offence.
What Counts as a “Private Act”? — Supreme Court’s Explanation
The Bench elaborated on the legal definition provided in Explanation 1 to Section 354C IPC, clarifying that a “private act” includes:
- Watching or capturing images of a woman in a place where privacy is reasonably expected, and where
o Her genitals, breasts, or posterior are exposed or covered only in underwear, or
o She is using a lavatory, or
o She is engaged in a sexual act not ordinarily performed in public.
The Court noted:
“There is no allegation that the complainant was watched or captured while engaging in a ‘private act’. Accordingly, the offence under Section 354C IPC is not made out.”
Since this core requirement was missing, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and discharged the accused.
Significance of the Judgment
This ruling provides crucial clarity on:
- Scope of Section 354C IPC: Not every instance of photographing or recording a woman amounts to voyeurism. The act must involve an intrusion into a legally recognized zone of privacy.
- Protection from Misuse: The judgment prevents the misuse of voyeurism provisions in situations where privacy expectations are not legally recognized.
- Reinforcement of Privacy Jurisprudence: The decision aligns with the Supreme Court’s broader privacy framework, distinguishing between mere discomfort and legally actionable intrusion.
