Cases of digital voyeurism are rapidly increasing in the country, there were 1,451 reported cases of voyeurism in India in the year 2023 (Photo: Canva)
In yet another disturbing case of digital voyeurism, Bengaluru police have booked an Instagram user for allegedly recording videos of women travelling on Metro trains and uploading them without their consent. The account, named Bangalore Metro Clicks (@metro_chicks), came under scrutiny after it was flagged on social media, prompting the police to take swift action.
The Instagram page had gained over 6,000 followers, while a linked Telegram channel named Speedy_Weedy123 had more than 1,100 subscribers. The page hosted 13 videos, each featuring women filmed without their knowledge, often accompanied by captions such as ‘finding beautiful girls on Namma Metro’. Comments on the videos had been disabled, and all content was deleted shortly after the account was called out online. The Telegram channel is no longer accessible.
The case came to light when a user on social media platform X (formerly Twitter) tagged the Bengaluru police, alerting them to the content. Following this, the police registered a case and initiated an investigation. Karnataka Police have arrested a 27-year-old man working in the accounts department of a private firm who was secretly filming and uploading these videos across social media pages.
This is not the first instance of such a violation. Cases of digital voyeurism are rapidly increasing in the country, there were 1,451 reported cases of voyeurism in India in the year 2023, according to the National Crime Records Bureau.
During the recent Kumbh Mela, arguably world’s largest spiritual gathering that draws in hundreds of millions of devotees, numerous videos surfaced online showing women taking ritual dips in the holy waters in the Ganga River. These videos, shot without the permission of the women, were circulated widely across social media, raising concerns about safety and privacy, even in sacred spaces.
Recent incidents have brought attention to the growing problem of voyeurism. While the issue is not new, more and more women are being made to feel unsafe and are secretly recorded. Experts say that the rise of social media and easy access to technology have made the problem worse. The lack of strict laws and punishments also allows such acts to continue.
“Several contributing factors are responsible for the rise in digital sexual crimes. The anonymity provided by the internet enables perpetrators to act without fear, which often leads to hate speeches. There is a lack of awareness among the public and law enforcement agencies about digital crimes, which adds to the problem. The culture of virality on social media, where shocking or voyeuristic content gets views, shares, and attention, also plays a major role. Weak surveillance and enforcement in crowded public spaces further worsen the situation. While smartphones with high-quality cameras are widely available, the issue lies in their misuse, which can contribute to the spread of such content,” Naveen Gautam, Lawyer and Dalit Rights Activist based in New Delhi, tells Media India Group.
In another case, women were secretly recorded during medical examinations at a maternity hospital in Rajkot, Gujarat. CCTV footage from inside the hospital, reportedly hacked, was leaked and distributed on YouTube and Telegram.
The videos showed women undergoing private gynaecological procedures and were shared through channels that charged money for access. Following a police investigation, multiple arrests were made, including individuals running 22 Telegram channels, allegedly earning millions by selling such illegal content. The case has sparked outrage and renewed calls for stronger data security and privacy safeguards in medical institutions.
Regulations addressing digital voyeurism and online harassment in India
Gautam explains that Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) explicitly criminalised voyeurism, including acts like capturing images or videos of a woman engaged in a private act without her consent, and sharing or distributing them. The punishment for a first conviction included imprisonment of upto three years and a fine. For subsequent convictions, the punishment increased to imprisonment of up to seven years and a fine.
He adds that, the new provision under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Section 77, voyeurism, retains the same legal essence as IPC 354C. It covers watching or capturing images of a woman engaged in a private act, distributing such content without her consent and applies only if the woman has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The punishment for voyeurism under this provision is imprisonment for not less than a year, but may extend to three years and a fine, while for a second or subsequent conviction, it is imprisonment for not less than three years which may extend to seven years and a fine. It is cognisable and bailable for the first offence, and non-bailable for the second or subsequent conviction and is triable by a Sessions Court.
“Section 77 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) to some extent, weakens the protections previously offered under IPC Section 354C on voyeurism by requiring that the woman must have a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” This adds a subjective threshold that may make it harder for victims to prove their case and could lead to inconsistent or biased interpretations.
In public or semi-public spaces (for instance, stairwells, balconies), a woman’s expectation of privacy might be considered “unreasonable,” even if voyeuristic acts are carried out with malicious intent,” says Gautam.
“While the change may aim to align with constitutional privacy standards as per the Puttuswamy judgement or prevent over-criminalisation, it risks creating legal loopholes and reducing deterrence against voyeurism which will go against the women and burden of proof comes on victim,” he adds.
Additionally, Section 66E of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 addresses the violation of privacy by capturing, publishing, or transmitting images of private areas without consent, with punishment of up to three years of imprisonment or a fine up to INR 200,000, or both.
However, despite these provisions, enforcement remains weak. “In public spaces like metros and malls, surveillance may exist, but real-time detection and rapid legal response are largely lacking. Social stigma, low reporting rates, and the difficulty of identifying offenders using anonymous or throwaway digital accounts also reduce the deterrence effect,” says Gautam.
“For Dalit and Adivasi and other women from communities discriminated against on work and descent and women from denotified tribes, these vulnerabilities are even more pronounced. Already subjected to systemic caste and gender-based discrimination, they often face additional barriers such as institutional apathy, victim-blaming and fear of retaliation when seeking justice,” he adds.