The Kerala High Court ruled that capturing a woman’s image in public does not constitute voyeurism under Indian law unless she is in a situation where privacy is expected and private parts are exposed. In the case of Ajith Pillai v State of Kerala, the Court quashed voyeurism charges but allowed prosecution under Section 509 for insulting modesty, emphasizing differentiation between public and private settings regarding privacy expectations.
Kerala: In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court clarified that capturing or viewing a woman’s image in a public or open area where she does not expect complete privacy does not amount to voyeurism under Indian law if no private parts are exposed. This observation was made by Justice A Badharudeen while hearing the case of Ajith Pillai v State of Kerala, where the petitioner sought to quash charges under Sections 354C (voyeurism) and 509 (acts insulting a woman’s modesty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Court explained that voyeurism charges apply only when a woman is engaged in a private act where privacy is reasonably expected. Justice Badharudeen elaborated, stating,
“Indubitably, watching or capturing the image of a woman, engaged in a private act in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed either by the perpetrator or by any other person at the behest of the perpetrator or disseminates such image alone is punishable.“
Read Also: Karnataka Lokayukta Summons CM Siddaramaiah for MUDA Probe Questioning on November 6
The judgment further clarified that being photographed in public without exposing private areas does not constitute an invasion of privacy under Section 354C of the IPC, which defines voyeurism. In this particular case, the incident occurred outside the complainant’s house, not in a private area where she would expect complete privacy. The Court held that in such a setting, voyeurism charges are not applicable.
The Court also highlighted that a “private act” under Section 354C is one that takes place in a location offering an expectation of privacy. According to the Court,
“If a woman normally appears in a public place or private place not in circumstances where she would usually expect, any other person if either sees or captures her image, the same, in no way, affects her privacy by exposing the genitals, posterior or breasts are exposed or covered only in underwear etc., no offence under Section 354C of the IPC, would attract.“
The case involved allegations by a complainant who claimed that two men, including the petitioner, took photos of her outside her residence and made inappropriate gestures intended to insult her modesty. The Kerala High Court quashed the voyeurism charge under Section 354C but maintained the charge under Section 509 of the IPC, which addresses words, gestures, or acts intended to insult a woman’s modesty.
In its reasoning, the Court noted that the alleged act did not involve any private exposure or a situation where the complainant could have reasonably expected privacy. Instead, it took place in a public setting outside her house. Thus, the Court opined,
“Even though explanation 1 to Section 354C provides that ‘private act’ includes an act of watching carried out in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy… the occurrence is in front of the house of the de facto complainant. Therefore, it could not be held that the said offence is made out.“
While quashing the voyeurism charge, the Court allowed the prosecution to proceed with charges under Section 509 of the IPC, which pertains to insulting a woman’s modesty. Additionally, the Court stated that the facts might warrant consideration of charges under Section 354A (sexual harassment) of the IPC during the charge-framing stage.
Read Also: “Statute Can Be Struck Down Only for Violation of Part III or Legislative Competence, Not for Violating Basic Structure”: CJI D.Y. Chandrachud Set Aside HC’s Order, Upholds Validity of UP Board of Madarsa Education Act
The trial court has been instructed to examine whether sufficient evidence exists to frame charges under Section 354A based on the allegations and the available evidence.
This ruling by the Kerala High Court is a notable clarification on the limits of voyeurism under Indian law and reinforces the idea that privacy expectations differ in public and private settings. By distinguishing between what constitutes a violation of privacy in public versus private spaces, this judgment sets an important precedent in safeguarding individual rights while ensuring that the legal interpretation of voyeurism remains consistent with practical privacy norms.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE