The Supreme Court has ruled that recording or photographing women in non-private spaces without their consent does not amount to voyeurism under Section 354C IPC. This landmark judgment emphasizes preventing misuse of criminal law in civil disputes.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has held that clicking photos or recording a video of a woman without her consent does not constitute voyeurism under Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code if the act occurs in a non-private setting. The ruling came in a case in which the Court discharged the accused, finding the charge of voyeurism was unsustainable.
The Bench comprising Justices NK Singh and Manmohan ruled that voyeurism applies only when a woman is observed or recorded during a private act, such as undressing, using a bathroom, or performing a sexual act. Since none of these circumstances existed in this case, the Court held that the ingredients of Section 354C were not fulfilled.
Background of the Case
The case arose out of a dispute between two brothers over a residential property in Salt Lake, Kolkata. The accused, Tuhin Kumar Biswas, allegedly recorded a woman entering the disputed property in March 2020, following which Mamta Agarwal filed an FIR.
Despite lack of evidence and the refusal by the complainant to record a judicial statement, the police filed a chargesheet under:
- Section 341 IPC – wrongful restraint
- Section 354C IPC – voyeurism
- Section 506 IPC – criminal intimidation
Both the Trial Court and the Calcutta High Court rejected the discharge plea, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.
Court’s Findings
1. Voyeurism Not Made Out
The Supreme Court clarified the legal meaning of voyeurism:
- Applies only when a woman engages in a private act
- No allegation of privacy breach existed in this incident
- Recording someone in a public or non-intimate scenario is not voyeurism
The Court criticized the High Court for acknowledging the absence of essential elements yet refusing discharge.
2. No Criminal Intimidation Under Section 506
To constitute criminal intimidation, a complaint must include a threat to cause injury to:
- Person
- Property
- Reputation
The FIR contained no such assertion, making the charge unsustainable.
3. No Wrongful Restraint
The woman had gone to see the property as a prospective tenant, and allowing her entry would violate a civil court injunction prohibiting third-party rights. The Court held that the accused acted in bona fide belief based on the subsisting order.
The Bench strongly warned against mechanically filing charge sheets without evidence:
“The tendency of filing charge sheets in matters where no strong suspicion is made out clogs the judicial system… The State should not prosecute citizens without a reasonable prospect of conviction.”
The Court emphasized that criminal courts must act as a filter to prevent weak cases from proceeding to trial and wasting judicial time.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and discharged the accused from all charges, holding that the dispute was purely civil and should have been addressed through civil proceedings, not criminal prosecution.
Appearance:
The appellant: Advocates Somnath Ghoshal, Sahid Uddin Ahmed, Towseef Ahmad Dar, Anupam Bar and Zinat Sultana.
The respondent: Advocates Prashant Alai and Kunal Mimani.
Case Title:
Tuhin Kumar Biswas @ Bumba vs. The State of West Bengal
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5146 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read More Reports on Stalking