The Bombay High Court held that staring at a woman colleague is unethical but does not constitute voyeurism under Section 354C IPC. It clarified the offence requires invasion of privacy through observing or recording private acts, not mere workplace misconduct.
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court held in a ruling that staring at a woman colleague’s body is unethical, but it does not amount to the offence of “voyeurism”. Justice Amit Borkar said that while the conduct is morally wrong, it does not satisfy the legal requirements for “voyeurism” under Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The court noted that Section 354C criminalises voyeurism, which includes watching, recording, or sharing images of a woman engaged in a private act, where she has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The provision applies when intimate body parts are exposed, when a woman is using a lavatory, or when she is performing a sexual act not usually done in public. The court said staring in an office setting would not fall within these categories.
ALSO READ: Recording Women Without Consent in Non-Private Spaces Not Voyeurism: Supreme Court
On the basis of these observations, the High Court quashed an FIR lodged against an insurance company executive, stating that the law cannot be expanded beyond its plain meaning. It also held that proceeding further would amount to an abuse of the legal process.
The complainant had alleged that in meetings the accused avoided maintaining eye contact and instead stared at her body and made inappropriate comments. The company’s internal complaints committee (ICC) had earlier cleared the accused in the matter.
VOYEURISM: SECTION 354 C
Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) defines voyeurism as a criminal act, representing a key advancement in India’s laws addressing sexual crimes. Enacted via the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 following the Nirbhaya incident, it seeks to shield women from privacy breaches and indignities. The section punishes a man for secretly watching or filming a woman during a private act where she reasonably expects seclusion and for sharing such recordings without permission.
The law specifies “private acts” as those occurring in places like bathrooms or bedrooms, or during personal activities where privacy is assumed. It holds even if others might see her, affirming her right against non-consensual viewing or recording. Prosecutors must show the accused observed or imaged the woman in such a moment without consent, amid a clear privacy expectation. Distributing the material illegally can compound the violation.
“Reasonable Expectation of Privacy” under Sec 354C
Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) reflects a careful approach to personal privacy by criminalising voyeurism especially where a “private act” occurs in circumstances that create a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” A “private act” is not confined to situations involving complete physical seclusion. It also covers contexts where a woman is located in areas typically associated with privacy (such as a bathroom or bedroom), or where she is undressed or engaged in intimate conduct.
In other words, privacy under the law is determined not only by physical barriers, but also by the nature of the act and the surrounding circumstances. Because of this, even partial exposure or brief moments of vulnerability can still fall within the protection intended by the provision.
A key element of Section 354C is the principle of a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” Under this idea, the relevant test is not simply whether the woman is somehow visible, but whether she could reasonably believe that she would not be watched or recorded. This reflects a more modern understanding of privacy as a contextual, situation-dependent right rather than something that depends purely on whether a person is behind physical walls.
The constitutional basis for this approach is strongly linked to the landmark decision in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, in which the Supreme Court recognised privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21. The logic of that judgment supports the view that unauthorised observation or recording of intimate conduct undermines an individual’s dignity and personal liberty.
Courts have also shaped how these terms should be applied through judicial precedents. In State of Punjab v. Major Singh, the Court stressed protection of a woman’s modesty, forming an early doctrinal foundation for offences touching on bodily privacy. More directly, in Kalandi Charan Lenka v. State of Odisha, the Court addressed the circulation of morphed and obscene images of a woman and held that such conduct amounts to a serious invasion of privacy and dignity, even when the content is digitally altered.
Likewise, in State v. Mohd. Afzal, the Court’s observations indicated that recording images without consent in a private context can amount to voyeurism even if the material is not necessarily widely shared. These rulings suggest that the offence is established the moment the privacy is breached; while dissemination can aggravate harm, it is not always a necessary element.
In today’s digital environment, the meaning of “private act” and “reasonable expectation of privacy” has become even more important. With the widespread availability of smartphones, hidden cameras, and social media platforms, the risk of covert surveillance and non-consensual recording has grown significantly.
For this reason, courts tend to adopt a purposive interpretation of Section 354C so that the law can effectively respond to technological developments. By safeguarding not only physical privacy but also personal dignity and autonomy, the provision addresses contemporary forms of sexual exploitation and reinforces the constitutional commitment to privacy and human dignity.
In essence, Section 354C marks a forward-looking change in Indian criminal jurisprudence by criminalizing voyeurism outright and tackling tech-enabled invasions. It upholds personal autonomy and seclusion, adapting to modern exploitation risks and affirming the justice system’s dedication to women’s dignity.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE