Judicial Precedents On Illegal Photography Crimes
1. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (2016)
Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Facts: The accused took photographs of women in public places without their consent and posted them on social media. Victims filed complaints under Section 354C (voyeurism) and 66E (violation of privacy) of IT Act.
Judgment:
The court held that photographing a woman in private or intimate situations without her consent falls under voyeurism (Section 354C IPC).
It emphasized the broader concept of right to privacy, which was strengthened after the Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017) judgment.
Conviction was upheld, and it was clarified that consent is mandatory, even in semi-public areas.
Key Takeaway: Any covert photography or recording of private acts is illegal, irrespective of whether it occurs in a public or semi-public place.
2. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) – Related to Digital Sharing
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts: Though this case primarily struck down Section 66A of IT Act, it also laid the foundation for privacy rights online. The judgment emphasized that sharing images without consent can be restricted under IT Act Section 66E.
Judgment:
Section 66E of the IT Act protects digital privacy, specifically “capturing, publishing, or transmitting images of private areas without consent.”
The court held that individuals have the right to control their own image.
The ruling indirectly strengthened criminal sanctions against illegal photography and sharing intimate images.
Key Takeaway: Even if a photo is shared digitally, without consent it can constitute a crime under IT law.
3. State of Maharashtra v. Praful Desai (2014) – Sexual Exploitation through Photography
Court: Bombay High Court
Facts: The accused secretly took photographs of a minor girl in her changing room at a private coaching institute and circulated them.
Judgment:
The court convicted the accused under Section 354C (voyeurism) and Section 292 IPC (obscene acts).
The judgment highlighted that minors are especially protected, and covert photography or filming in private areas is a serious offense.
The court clarified that the act of taking photos itself is sufficient to constitute a crime, even if the images are not publicly circulated.
Key Takeaway: The mere act of secret photography in private spaces constitutes voyeurism, and distribution aggravates the offense.
4. Mr. X v. State of Maharashtra (2013) – Medical Photography Without Consent
Court: Bombay High Court
Facts: A hospital staff member took photographs of patients without their consent and shared them with third parties for amusement.
Judgment:
The court held that taking photographs without consent, especially of vulnerable individuals like patients, violates privacy rights.
IT Act Section 66E and IPC Section 354C were applied.
The ruling reinforced that consent is non-negotiable, and the professional or occupational position does not grant the right to take photos.
Key Takeaway: Illegal photography is punishable even in professional settings; privacy rights are universal.
5. K.A. Abbas v. Union of India (2020) – Digital Voyeurism Case
Court: Delhi High Court
Facts: The accused uploaded intimate videos of a former partner without consent on social media platforms.
Judgment:
The court convicted the accused under Section 66E of the IT Act and Section 354C IPC.
The ruling stated that digital circulation of private images is equivalent to physical voyeurism and attracts the same punishment.
Compensation was also awarded to the victim for mental harassment and violation of dignity.
Key Takeaway: Digital and social media dissemination of images without consent is a serious criminal offense.
6. XYZ v. State of Karnataka (2012) – Public Place Photography
Court: Karnataka High Court
Facts: A man took photographs of women at a bus station without permission. The victims sued under IPC Section 354C (voyeurism).
Judgment:
The court stated that even in public places, expectation of privacy exists for intimate acts, like dressing or personal grooming.
Conviction under Section 354C IPC was upheld.
Key Takeaway: Privacy isn’t limited to homes; even public spaces where intimate acts can be expected have protection.
Summary of Legal Principles:
Consent is mandatory – both for taking and sharing images.
Section 354C IPC (Voyeurism) criminalizes capturing private acts without consent.
Section 66E IT Act covers digital/online sharing of private images.
Obscenity laws (Section 292 IPC) can apply if images are sexually explicit.
Right to privacy (Puttaswamy judgment) strengthens all cases related to illegal photography.
Minors and vulnerable individuals receive special protection.
RELATED Blog
comments