Public Photographs of Women Alone Don’t Amount to Voyeurism, Supreme Court Clarifies

The Supreme Court of India has delivered a significant judgment that narrows the scope of voyeurism under Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), now Section 77 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The ruling provides judicial clarity on a common yet legally misunderstood situation—clicking or recording a woman’s photograph in a public setting does not, by itself, constitute voyeurism or an offence under Section 354C, unless the woman is engaged in a private act and has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The decision came in Tuhin Kumar Biswas @ Bumba v. State of West Bengal, where the Court discharged the accused from allegations of voyeurism, criminal intimidation, and wrongful restraint. It stressed that criminal prosecution cannot be sustained where statutory ingredients of the offence are absent and where civil disputes are camouflaged into criminal complaints.

Background of the Case

The controversy arose after the complainant alleged that the accused wrongfully prevented her from entering a property and clicked pictures/videos of her without consent, thereby outraging her modesty. An FIR was registered under Sections 341, 354C and 506 IPC.

However, as the facts unfolded, the complaint was not as straightforward as it appeared.

Key background observations include:

• The accused’s father and another co-owner were embroiled in a civil dispute over possession of the property.
• An interim court injunction already required both parties to maintain joint possession and restricted creation of third-party tenancy.
• The complainant was not a confirmed tenant—merely a prospective entrant into the premises.
• Police seized no photographs or videos.
• The complainant later refused to record a judicial statement under Section 164 CrPC.

Issue

• Does filming or photographing a woman in a non-private, public context constitute voyeurism under Section 354C IPC?

What Counts as Voyeurism Under Law?

Section 354C criminalises:

Watching or capturing the image of a woman engaged in a private act without consent, where she reasonably expects not to be observed.

The statute defines a private act to include scenarios where:

• The woman’s body is exposed (wholly or partially)
• She is using a bathroom or lavatory
• She is performing a sexual or intimate act

Thus, criminality arises not merely from taking a photo, but from:

• the nature of the act being captured
• the expectation of privacy
• lack of consent

In this case, none of these statutory ingredients were present. The complainant was fully clothed, in a public space, entering disputed property, not engaged in a private act.

Why Voyeurism Charge Failed

The Supreme Court noted:

• There was no allegation that the woman was engaged in a private act such as bathing, undressing, sexual activity or use of a lavatory.
• The act of taking a photograph alone—without sexual intent or private context—does not fulfil Section 354C.
• The High Court itself had acknowledged the absence of foundational elements of voyeurism.

Thus, the charge was legally unsustainable.

Supreme Court’s Observations on Misuse of Criminal Law

One of the most powerful parts of the judgment is procedural—not substantive. The Court criticised police and trial courts for blindly registering charges where no strong suspicion existed.

The bench declared:

• Criminal law must not be used to settle civil disputes.
• Filing unnecessary chargesheets contributes to the judicial backlog.
• Courts must act as filters and not allow trials without reasonable prospects of conviction.
• Prosecution without basis violates fair trial principles.

In this case, the Court said, should not have reached trial at all.

The Way Forward

While the judgment prevents wrongful criminalisation, it also calls for:

• Legal literacy on consent and media filming
• Police training on distinguishing privacy breaches from public photography
• Judicial filtering at the charge-framing stage
• Clear legislative expansion if digital voyeurism evolves beyond current definitions

Conclusion

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that criminal law must be invoked with precision—not emotion. A photograph taken in public may be unwelcome, intrusive, or even unethical, but it is not automatically voyeurism. The offence arises only when privacy is breached, when the woman is in a protected state, and when the act carries sexual invasion.

The judgment protects the integrity of criminal jurisprudence while preventing misuse of gender-protection laws. Misclassification not only harms the accused but also weakens genuine cases of sexual exploitation.

Voyeurism must be punished where it truly occurs—but should not be alleged where statutory conditions do not exist.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams