No Voyeurism for Non-Private Act Filming

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh and Manmohan in the case of Tuhin Kumar Biswas v. State of West Bengal (2025) allowed the appeal and discharged the appellant-accused, holding that act of clicking a woman's pictures and making her videos on a mobile phone without her consent, when is not indulging in a "private act", would not attract an offence of voyeurism under Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 

What was the Background of Tuhin Kumar Biswas v. State of West Bengal (2025) Case? 

• An FIR was filed on March 19, 2020 by complainant Ms. Mamta Agarwal under Sections 341, 354C, and 506 of IPC against Tuhin Kumar Biswas. 
• The property in question (CF-231, Sector I, Salt Lake, Kolkata) was jointly owned by two brothers - Bimalendu Biswas (father of the appellant) and Amalendu Biswas. 
• A civil suit (Title Suit No. 20 of 2018) was pending regarding the property, wherein the Civil Court had passed an injunction order on November 29, 2018 directing both parties to maintain joint possession and restraining them from creating third-party interests. 
• The complainant alleged that on March 18, 2020, when she tried to enter the property with her friend and workmen, the appellant intimidated and restrained them, clicked her pictures and made videos without consent, thereby outraging her modesty. 
• A chargesheet dated August 16, 2020 was filed against the appellant, which notably mentioned that the complainant expressed her unwillingness to make a judicial statement. 
• The appellant, being the son of one of the co-owners, filed a discharge application which was dismissed by the Trial Court on August 29, 2023. 
• The High Court dismissed the revision petition on January 30, 2024, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• Section 354C defines voyeurism as watching or capturing images of a woman engaging in a 'private act' where she would expect not to be observed. 
• The Court found no allegation that the complainant was engaging in any 'private act' when allegedly photographed or videographed. 
• The High Court itself had concluded that allegations did not disclose an offence under Section 354C but inexplicably failed to discharge the appellant on this count. 
• The Court held that mere clicking of pictures in a property dispute does not constitute voyeurism under Section 354C IPC. 
• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and discharged the appellant from all charges. The Court concluded that continuing criminal proceedings in this case would be an abuse of process, given the absence of legally tenable evidence supporting any of the three offences charged.

What is Voyeurism? 

Definition: 

Voyeurism consists of three key acts: 

• Watching a woman engaging in a private act. 
• Capturing the image of a woman engaging in a private act. 
• Disseminating such images. 
• All acts must occur in circumstances where the woman would reasonably expect not to be observed. 

Essential Ingredients: 

What Constitutes a "Private Act" (Explanation 1) 

• Act carried out in a place reasonably expected to provide privacy. 
• Victim's genitals, posterior or breasts are exposed or covered only in underwear. 
• Victim is using a lavatory. 
• Victim is doing a sexual act not ordinarily done in public. 

Perpetrator's Conduct: 

• Direct watching or capturing by the perpetrator, OR. 
• Watching or capturing by another person at the behest of the perpetrator. 
• Dissemination of such images to third persons. 

Consent and Dissemination (Explanation 2) 

• Victim may consent to capture of images but not to dissemination. 
• If images are disseminated without consent for dissemination, it constitutes an offence. 
• Consent to capture ≠ consent to share. 

Punishment Structure: 

First Conviction 

• Imprisonment: Minimum 1 year, may extend to 3 years. 
• Fine: Mandatory. 
• Nature: Bailable. 

Second or Subsequent Conviction 

• Imprisonment: Minimum 3 years may extend to 7 years. 
• Fine: Mandatory. 
• Nature: Non-bailable. 

Procedural Classification (BNSS) 

• Cognizable offence: Police can arrest without warrant. 
• Bailable: For first conviction. 
• Non-bailable: For second or subsequent conviction. 
• Triable by: Court of Session. 

Legislative Evolution: 

• Earlier Law: Section 354C of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 
• Current Law: Section 77 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 
• Key Change: Substantive provisions largely retained with enhanced procedural clarity.