top of page

Clicking Photos Without Consent in Public Is Not Voyeurism, Rules SC

Introduction

In a landmark decision emphasising the division between civil issues and criminal charges, the Supreme Court acquitted an individual of all criminal accusations related to an enduring family property conflict in Kolkata’s Salt Lake region. The Court determined that the claims, even if taken literally, did not reveal the necessary components of the alleged offences and that the criminal proceedings were improperly used to cast a civil issue in a criminal light.


The ruling highlights the Supreme Court’s ongoing vigilance against the standard criminalisation of personal conflicts and emphasises the court’s function as a gatekeeper during the discharge phase.


An image illustrating the Supreme Court's ruling. A central vertical glass barrier labeled "SUPREME COURT RULING" divides the scene. On the left, in blue, are symbols of law and civil matters (gavel, scales of justice, books, figures in the background) labeled "CIVIL MATTERS". On the right, in red, a smartphone is held up, displaying a red 'X' over the text "PHOTOS WITHOUT CONSENT" and "VOYEURISM", emphasizing that simple, non-private photos without consent are not considered voyeurism under criminal law, thus separating it from criminal charges. The logo for "Lawttorney.ai" is at the bottom.

Background of the Dispute

The situation stemmed from a family dispute between two siblings regarding the title and control of a residential property in Salt Lake, Kolkata. The defendant, Tuhin Kumar Biswas, is the child of a co-owner.


In 2018, the father of the accused filed a civil lawsuit against his brother over the property. On 29 November 2018, a civil court ordered both parties to keep joint possession of the property and explicitly prohibited them from establishing third-party rights. This order stayed in effect throughout the occurrences that subsequently initiated the criminal case.


FIR Triggered During Pendency of Civil Proceedings

In March 2020, Mamta Agarwal, the complainant, went to the property. She subsequently filed an FIR, reportedly at the instigation of the accused's uncle, asserting that the accused unlawfully confined her, threatened her, and captured her videos and photos without her Consent.


According to this FIR, authorities submitted a chargesheet on 16 August 2020 for violations under: 

  • Section 341 IPC – Unlawful confinement 

  • Section 354C of the IPC – Voyeurism 

  • Section 506 of the IPC addresses the issue of criminal intimidation. 


Significantly, the complainant chose not to provide a judicial statement throughout the investigation. Nevertheless, the trial court and subsequently the Calcutta High Court denied the accused's discharge, prompting him to appeal to the Supreme Court.


Law on Discharge: Supreme Court’s Framework

Initially, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the established principles related to discharge. It highlighted that a case can move to trial only when the prosecution evidence creates a “strong suspicion” that the defendant has committed a crime.


In this initial phase, courts serve as a barrier to block weak, speculative, or abusive cases from progressing to trial. Although courts are not required to assess the probability of a conviction, they need to confirm that the essential elements of crimes are fundamentally established. 


No Case of Voyeurism Made Out

Analysing the allegation under Section 354C IPC, the Court specified that voyeurism is relevant only when a woman is observed or filmed while engaged in a private act, like:

  • Disrobing 

  • Utilising the restroom 

  • Participating in a sexual encounter 


The FIR, however, included no assertion that the complainant was involved in any similar private activity. The Court noted that the High Court had recognised that voyeurism was not established, yet still refused to release the appellant, a rationale the Supreme Court deemed unacceptable.


Criminal Intimidation: Essential Ingredients Missing

Regarding the charge under Section 506 IPC, the Court observed that criminal intimidation necessitates a distinct threat of harm to an individual, assets, or reputation.


The FIR did not reveal any such danger. Simply claiming there was a verbal exchange or discomfort, without a specific threat, would not meet the legal criteria for criminal intimidation.


Wrongful Restraint and the Civil Injunction

The claim of wrongful detention was also thoroughly investigated. The Court noted that the complainant was not established as a tenant and had only visited the property as a potential tenant.


Significantly, the induction of a tenant would have directly breached the civil court’s injunction preventing the establishment of third-party rights. In that situation, the defendant’s behaviour was determined to stem from a genuine belief that he had a legal right to block entry to adhere to the existing court order.


Criminal Law Used as a Tool in a Civil Dispute

The Supreme Court determined that the FIR was completely based on the ongoing civil property conflict among relatives. Even if the claims were fully acknowledged, they brought up matters more suitably dealt with through:

  • Petitions submitted to the civil court, or 

  • Remedies related to the injunction in the ongoing case 

  • They did not justify criminal charges. 

  • Intense Critique of Mechanical Chargesheets 


The Court expressed concern over the habitual submission of chargesheets in situations lacking substantial suspicion.


"The inclination to submit chargesheets in cases lacking substantial suspicion hampers the judicial system… It undermines the right to a fair trial."


The Court cautioned that these practices squander judicial time, overload prosecutors and judges, and misallocate limited resources from significant criminal cases, thus worsening delays.


Final Decision

The Supreme Court granted the appeal, releasing the appellant from all accusations and overturning the decisions of both the trial court and the Calcutta High Court.


Lawttorney.ai Perspective

This ruling illustrates an essential tenet that Lawttorney.ai continually stresses: criminal law cannot replace civil remedies.


With its AI-driven offence analysis and legal precedent mapping, Lawttorney.ai assists legal practitioners:

  • Determine if FIR allegations fulfil legal requirements.

  • Identify misuse of criminal laws in civil cases.

  • Implement discharge-stage legal principles correctly.

  • Avoid unnecessary trials when prosecution is weak.


By correlating FIR facts with legal precedents, Lawttorney.ai guarantees the early identification of weak prosecutions, safeguarding citizens' freedom and preserving judicial resources.


Way Forward

The Supreme Court’s decision is a timely reaffirmation that criminal charges must be based on legally valid claims, rather than personal grudges or existing civil conflicts. Through the dismissal of the charges, the Court upheld the integrity of the criminal justice system and strengthened the judiciary’s function as a constitutional protector against process abuse.


In a time of increasing lawsuits, this clarity, alongside smart legal resources like Lawttorney.ai, guarantees that justice stays equitable, reasonable, and strongly based in law.


Empower Your Legal Practice with AI – Join Our Free Webinar!

Are you a legal professional looking to boost your efficiency and stay ahead in a competitive field? Discover the power of Lawttorney.AI – the cutting-edge tool designed to streamline legal research, automate tasks, and enhance productivity.


👉 Don't miss out! Reserve your spot in our FREE webinar and experience the future of legal practice today. Register Now

Comments

bottom of page