Supreme Court Ruling: Is Filming Entry into Property Voyeurism? Key Verdict Sparks Privacy Debate!

The Supreme Court has delivered a crucial judgment, stating that clicking photos or recording videos of a woman entering a property, even without her consent, does not constitute voyeurism under Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code. The court stressed that such acts only apply to private moments like undressing or sexual activity.

Background of the Case

This significant ruling came in an appeal by Tuhin Kumar Biswas, who was booked for voyeurism, wrongful restraint, and criminal intimidation. The case stemmed from a property dispute in Kolkata between two brothers, where the accused's father had filed a civil suit. An injunction was in place, forbidding third-party rights or changes to possession.

Allegations and FIR

The complainant, Mamta Agarwal, alleged that the accused wrongfully restrained her, intimidated her, and recorded her photos and videos without consent when she visited the disputed property in March 2020. Despite the complainant refusing to give a judicial statement, the police filed a chargesheet for offences including voyeurism.

Supreme Court's Interpretation of Voyeurism

The bench, comprising Justices NK Singh and Manmohan, meticulously examined Section 354C of the IPC. They explained that the offence of voyeurism is specifically linked to watching or recording a person during a 'private act.' This includes acts such as undressing, using a bathroom, or engaging in sexual activity. Since the FIR did not allege any such private act, the charge of voyeurism was deemed inapplicable.

Other Charges Dismissed

The Court also scrutinized the charges of criminal intimidation and wrongful restraint. For criminal intimidation (Section 506), the FIR lacked specifics about any threat to person, property, or reputation. Regarding wrongful restraint (Section 341), the accused was believed to have acted on a bona fide belief that he had a lawful right to prevent entry due to the subsisting civil court injunction, especially as the complainant was not an established tenant.

Criticism of Clogged Justice System

The Supreme Court strongly criticized the tendency to file chargesheets in cases lacking strong suspicion. The court highlighted that this practice burdens the criminal justice system, leading to wasted judicial resources and significant case backlogs. It emphasized that prosecutions should not proceed without a reasonable prospect of conviction.

Final Verdict

Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the chargesheet, and discharged Tuhin Kumar Biswas from all charges, directing that the matter should be resolved through civil remedies.

Impact

• This ruling provides clarity on the definition of voyeurism, narrowing its scope to private acts and potentially shielding individuals from charges in less severe situations.
• It reinforces the principle that civil disputes should ideally be resolved through civil courts, rather than being escalated to criminal proceedings without sufficient grounds.
• The criticism of filing weak chargesheets aims to reduce the burden on the judiciary and ensure that limited resources are focused on more serious offences.
• Impact Rating: 7

Difficult Terms Explained

• Voyeurism (Section 354C IPC): Watching or photographing a person without their consent in a situation where they have an expectation of privacy, especially during private acts like undressing or sexual activity.
• Wrongful Restraint: Illegally detaining or preventing someone from moving freely.
• Criminal Intimidation: Threatening to cause injury to a person, their reputation, or property to alarm them.
• Chargesheet: A formal document filed by the police or investigative agency after completing an investigation, outlining the evidence and charges against the accused.
• Discharge: An order by a court to release an accused person from charges, typically when there is insufficient evidence to proceed to trial.
• FIR (First Information Report): The initial complaint report filed with the police, which often initiates a criminal investigation.
• Injunction: A court order that prohibits a party from performing a specific act or requires them to perform a specific act.
• Bona fide: In good faith; genuinely believing one has a lawful right.