The Kerala High Court recently ruled that photographing a woman in a public space without her consent does not automatically constitute “voyeurism” under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This decision was made in the context of a case where the accused had taken pictures of a woman while she was in a public place. The court found that this act, in itself, does not fulfill the legal requirements for voyeurism as defined under Section 354C of the IPC.
Background:
In the case, the petitioner had been accused of voyeurism under Section 354C, which criminalizes the act of watching or capturing images of a woman engaged in a private act without her consent. This section is intended to address situations where a woman’s privacy is deliberately intruded upon, particularly in circumstances where she has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Court’s Rationale:
The High Court held that merely taking a photograph of someone in a public setting, where there is no expectation of privacy, does not meet the legal threshold for voyeurism. The court clarified that for an act to qualify as voyeurism, it must involve capturing a woman in a setting where she would reasonably expect privacy, such as in her home or a private space, and the action should be intended to violate her personal boundaries.
Existing Measures:
Section 354C was introduced to address serious invasions of privacy, specifically in cases where women are secretly recorded in private situations. In public areas, where individuals generally do not expect privacy, this section may not apply unless the intent and context are demonstrably intrusive.
Conclusion:
The Kerala High Court’s decision underscores the limitations of applying voyeurism laws in public contexts, reinforcing the need for legislative clarity on privacy protections in public versus private spaces. This ruling could impact how similar cases are interpreted, particularly in distinguishing between general photography in public and deliberate acts of invasion of privacy.