There are certain crimes committed against women that go mostly unreported or unacknowledged. One such crime is voyeurism.

Voyeurism can be defined as "intrusion into private space of the victim without his/her permission where the victim has a legitimate expectation of privacy." It is the act of receiving pleasure, interest and sexual gratification from viewing others mostly while they are undressed, naked, or engaging in sexual acts.

It is an act of putting someone in a position where you take control of their dignity, and causes more damage to a person's mental state than it does to their body. This can happen in the form of unauthorised surveillance, such as the installation of a camera in a place where one would reasonably expect privacy, or the unauthorised dissemination of recordings or photos, such as the posting of nude or semi-nude photographs online, without the victim's permission.

It was after the recent incident at Chandigarh University, in which a hostel inmate allegedly shot multiple offensive films of female students in a shared bathroom, that voyeurism was brought to the forefront of the public's consciousness.

Crimes of voyeurism have been reported in various cities across India following the Chandigarh University case, including at IIT Bombay and Eklavya Kanya Saksharta Nivasi Shala, a government-run residential school in the Valsad district of South Gujarat. Additionally, a man was arrested in Bengaluru for allegedly sending obscene photos of a former co-worker.

Voyeurism as a crime punishable under Section 354C of IPC

Voyeurism can be regarded as a most brazen assault on the personal space or right to privacy and is in violation of both Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the multi-dimensional Article 21 of the Constitution of India. An individual has the right to assume that nobody will pry into his or her personal life, invade their privacy, or restrict their personal freedom without their consent.

The act of voyeurism was not a crime in India until the year 2013. Based on the recommendations of Justice JS Verma Committee, a new clause 354C was introduced to the Indian Penal Code. Post the 2012 Nirbhaya rape incident, the Commission agreed that there should be stricter penalties for sexual offences of all kinds and decided that voyeurism should carry a maximum sentence of seven years in prison.

Section 354C defines voyeurism as “any man who watches or captures the image of a woman engaging in a private act in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed either by the perpetrator or by any other person at the behest of the perpetrator.” This includes a woman who is using the restroom, undressed, or only wearing her undergarments, as well as a woman who is engaged in sexual activity. Under Explanation 2 of Section 354C, the offender is equally liable if the victim agrees to the taking of private photographs, but forbids their dissemination, despite which a person shares the images.

NCRB statistics on voyeurism

There were 1,513 reported cases of voyeurism in India in the year 2021, according to the National Crime Records Bureau. The state with the highest number of cases was Maharashtra (210), followed by Andhra Pradesh (159) and Odisha (148). Mumbai had the most reported instances with 73, followed by Delhi with 22, Hyderabad with 18, Chennai and Kolkata tied for fifth with 17 each.

It would be worthy to note that the crime of voyeurism in states like Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, Tripura stands at zero. There is no reason to assume that the crime is less common because of the low statistics; it may just be going unnoticed. Metro cities with the highest rates of reporting are also the ones with the highest levels of awareness and education. We, and especially the women, know less about this offence and the potential remedies.

Also, there are significant gaps in the law regarding voyeurism, as it is currently in the process of being developed. First of all, the term excludes altered or manipulated images or films of the victim created by the offender by transposing the victim's face from a non-intimate snapshot to an obscene image or video. Even if this does not technically qualify as voyeurism, it will have just as devastating an effect on the victim as any other form of voyeuristic content. Second, the provision does not treat males and females equally and fails to acknowledge that males can be voyeurism victims as well.

What can victims of voyeurism do?

Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that in case an individual feels that she has been a victim of voyeurism, she can file a complaint in the police station. The woman has two options for expressing her complaint: verbally or in writing. 

In accordance with the first proviso, a female police officer or female officer is required to take down any information provided by a female witness in connection with the crimes specified therein. Information on the offences listed in the proviso shall be recorded at the residence of such person or at a place convenient to such person's choosing in the presence of an interpreter or social educator, as specified in the second proviso. Additionally, it has been stipulated that a video recording of such information will be made, and that the police officer shall have the person's statement recorded by a judicial magistrate.

In addition to the possibility of a fine, the sentence for a first-time offender may include a term of imprisonment of that must not be less than one year but may go as high as three years. The sentence of imprisonment for a repeat offender may include a term of imprisonment of either kind that must not be less than three years but may go as high as seven years. Bail may be allowed if this is the defendant's first conviction for this offence; however, bail will be denied without exception for a subsequent conviction for the same offence.

Conclusion

The criminalization of voyeurism in the Indian Penal Code, 1860, specifically under Section 354C, has the potential to increase the protections afforded to women in our society. However, execution of legislation protecting women remains embarrassingly lax, and police across the nation must concentrate on locating the source of crime. The media and law enforcement also need to do more; the former should raise public awareness of the problem, while the latter should investigate and prosecute offenders. Unfortunately, they have both failed in their duties.

In a recent order, the Supreme Court called for a severe implementation of Section 354C of IPC against electronic media who frequently broadcast private photographs. These remarks were made in the backdrop of the media broadcasting photographs of sex workers with their clients while reporting rescue operations.

The significance of being aware and cognizant of the rules and regulations, especially those pertaining to the safety of women, cannot be overstated. Victims and their loved ones are left with lifelong scars as a result of voyeurism. With all the progress in technology, the laws in India should be more concrete to prevent these kinds of crimes against women.

Akhil Sohu is a student of National Law University, Jodhpur.