Kerala High Court: In a recent important decision, the Kerala High Court said that if a woman is in a public or open place where she cannot expect complete privacy, and in such a situation her photo is taken or she is seen by a person, then it will not be counted as a crime of voyeurism. Justice A. Badruddin clarified that seeing or taking the image of a woman is punishable only in the case when she is engaged in a “private act” and that place expects privacy.
The court emphasized that the crime of voyeurism applies only when a person sees or photographs a woman in an activity where privacy can be expected, such as exposing private parts, using the bathroom, or engaging in any private sexual activity. In such cases, violating the privacy of a woman will be considered a crime under Section 354C of the IPC.
What is the whole case
This decision was given while hearing a petition filed by a petitioner named Ajit Pillai. Pillai had sought to quash the charges against him under Section 354C (voyeurism) and Section 509 (words, gestures or acts insulting the dignity of a woman). The complainant had alleged that two persons took her photographs outside her house and made obscene gestures to insult her dignity.
The court clarified that the “private act” falling under Section 354C is one in which the woman has a reasonable expectation of privacy. For example, if a person’s private parts are exposed, he is using the bathroom, or is engaged in a private sexual act, then it will be counted as a “private act”. In this case, the incident took place in front of the complainant’s house, which the court did not consider in the definition of “private act”. Therefore, the charge of voyeurism does not stand in this case.
Section 354C charge dropped, Section 509 case upheld
The court dropped the voyeurism charge, but allowed the prosecution to continue under Section 509, which covers the offence of using words, gestures or acts that insult the modesty of a woman. Additionally, the court said that the petitioner’s alleged actions in this case could also fall under Section 354A (sexual harassment) of the IPC, and the trial court would consider this further.
This judgment points to the circumstances under which women’s safety and privacy in public places is violated, and under what circumstances it will not be considered a crime. This judgment has given rise to an important discussion in society on the safety of women and the limits of their privacy.
