The Kerala High Court, in a significant interpretation of voyeurism laws, ruled that viewing or photographing women with exposed private parts in a public or non-private setting does not fall under the offence of voyeurism as outlined in Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The decision came in the case of Ajith Pillai v. State of Kerala (Crl. M.C. No. 8677 of 2024), where the court addressed the limits of voyeurism laws and the definition of privacy in public versus private spaces.
Case Background and Allegations
The case dates back to an incident on May 3, 2022, when Ajith Pillai, the petitioner and a 56-year-old resident of Ernakulam, along with a co-accused, allegedly made inappropriate gestures toward Sindhu Vijaykumar, the de facto complainant. According to the complaint, Pillai and his associate took photos of Vijaykumar and her residence while parked outside her home. When Vijaykumar confronted them, she reported that both men responded with gestures of a sexual nature, intended to insult her modesty.
Pillai moved the court to quash the charges under Section 354C (voyeurism) and Section 509 (intentional insult to a woman’s modesty) of the IPC, arguing that the alleged actions did not meet the criteria for voyeurism since they occurred in a public setting.
Key Legal Issues and Arguments
The legal issues revolved around two main points:
1. Applicability of Section 354C (Voyeurism) in Public Spaces: Section 354C pertains to voyeurism, which criminalizes watching or capturing images of a woman engaged in a private act in a location where she would reasonably expect privacy. The petitioner’s counsel argued that taking photographs in a public space does not meet the legal threshold for voyeurism. The defense also pointed out that no incriminating images were found on the petitioner’s mobile phone, undermining the allegations.
2. Section 509 (Insult to Modesty): Under Section 509, the complainant accused Pillai of making gestures that insulted her modesty, which is punishable if proven. The petitioner claimed that the allegations were unfounded and possibly motivated by personal vendetta, given a prior conflict involving temple committee matters where the complainant held a prominent position.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice A. Badharudeen, presiding over the case, examined the requirements for an offense under Section 354C, particularly the need for a “private setting” as defined in the provision. The court emphasized that voyeurism, as per Section 354C, applies only when images are taken in private spaces, such as bedrooms or bathrooms, where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
In this context, the court stated, “If a woman appears in a public or non-private space without any reasonable expectation of privacy, capturing her image does not constitute voyeurism under Section 354C IPC.” The court held that since the complainant was photographed in front of her house—a non-private, open setting—the charge of voyeurism could not be sustained.
Consequently, the court quashed the voyeurism charge (Section 354C) against Pillai but allowed proceedings to continue for the charge under Section 509 IPC, observing that there was sufficient prima facie evidence to consider an insult to the complainant’s modesty.
