Photographing women in public doesn’t constitute voyeurism: HC
Justice A Badharudeen delivered the ruling while dismissing voyeurism charges under Section 354C of the IPC against Ajith Pillai, a resident of North Paravoor, Ernakulam district.
Justice A Badharudeen delivered the ruling while dismissing voyeurism charges under Section 354C of the IPC against Ajith Pillai, a resident of North Paravoor, Ernakulam district.
Justice A Badharudeen delivered the ruling while dismissing voyeurism charges under Section 354C of the IPC against Ajith Pillai, a resident of North Paravoor, Ernakulam district.
Kochi: Kerala High Court ruled that seeing or photographing a woman in a public or private setting where she typically expects to be seen or photographed does not amount to voyeurism. In its judgment, the court clarified that such instances do not constitute an offence under Section 354C (Voyeurism) of the Indian Penal Code, reported PTI.
Justice A Badharudeen delivered the ruling while dismissing voyeurism charges under Section 354C of the IPC against Ajith Pillai, 56, a resident of North Paravoor, Ernakulam district.
Pillai, who was charged under Sections 354C and 509 (Word, gesture or act intended to insult a woman’s modesty) of the IPC in a case filed by North Paravoor police, approached the High Court seeking to quash the charge sheet and further proceedings.
According to the prosecution, on May 3, 2022, the woman was in front of her house when the accused arrived in a car and took photos of her and her property. She reportedly stopped their car to question the photography, at which point the accused allegedly made gestures with sexual undertones.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the woman, who serves as the Secretary of the Nandyattukunnam Sree Subramanian Swamy temple committee, had filed the case due to a personal dispute.
The court stated that voyeurism charges apply only when a woman is observed or photographed during a “private act” under conditions where she would reasonably expect privacy from any observer or perpetrator.
“If a woman is present in a public or private space where she normally expects to be seen, any person who observes or captures her image does not violate her privacy, and Section 354C (Voyeurism) would not apply,” the court observed.
In this case, the court noted, “the complainant was in front of her house without any expectation of privacy, as per the context of Section 354C of the IPC; hence, voyeurism charges cannot be pursued against the petitioner.” However, the court permitted the continuation of proceedings under Section 509 of the IPC.