Case title:
Prashob V.M. vs. State of Kerala
Date of Order:
May 9, 2023
Bench:
Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque
Parties:
Appellant - Prashob V.M.
Respondent - State of Kerela
SUBJECT
The case of Prashob V.M. v. State of Kerala circles around the interpretation of Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code which is regarding voyeurism. It examines the boundaries of privacy expectations in public places while also clarifying when an act constitutes as a violation under voyeurism laws.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- Section 354C IPC- This Section deals with voyeurism, criminalisation of the act of recording or watching private acts of women without consent.
- Section 509 IPC- This Section addresses the insult to a woman’s modesty primarily connecting to acts that violate privacy.
- Right to Privacy- Right to Privacy involves understanding what constitutes a reasonable expectation of privacy in public and semi-public places.
OVERVIEW
The High Court of Kerala examined the application of voyeurism laws under section 354C of the Indian Penal Code and clarified that public or semi-public observation does not automatically constitute as an offence unless intimate parts of the body have been exposed. This judgment has redefined privacy expectations in the context of voyeurism and safeguarding of women’s rights.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether capturing images in a public place without consent constitutes as voyeurism?
- The extent of expectations of privacy in a public space and its legal interpretation under Section 354C of IPC.
- Whether the observation in public , involving no exposure of intimate body parts will stand as a violation of the law?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
The appellant contended that the act of capturing images in public without permission amounted to a clear violation of the Right of Privacy which invokes Section 354C.The appellant argued that voyeurism laws should be applicable despite of an individual’s location in cases where an individual is photographed in a manner that violates their privacy.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
The respondent argued around voyeurism only being applicable when there is a straight invasion of privacy in spaces or instances where intimate exposure happens.The respondent contends that public observation in a non-intimate setting does not correlate to an offence under section 354C of the Indian Penal Code.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
Kerala High Court rules that voyeurism under section 354C is applicable only when an individual’s intimate privacy is threatened and clearly violated. The court proceeded to clarify that a public setting and non - intimate exposures do not automatically succumb to voyeurism laws. This Judgement establishes a more structured and clear legal framework for differentiating between public observation and actual privacy violations.
CONCLUSION
The Kerala High Court’s ruling in the case of Prashob v. State of Kerala provides a prominent clarification on the applicability of the voyeurism laws under the a section 354C of the Indian Penal Code. It differentiates between public and private settings while also emphasising that voyeurism only occurs when there is a clear invasion of privacy with the involvement of intimate acts or exposure. This judgement helps in defining the privacy expectations in the public places while also ensuring that the law safeguards individuals without overreaching into the normal public interactions. The judgment provides clarity on the privacy protections for women and also sets a precedent for the future of similar cases.
