Criminalization Of Voyeurism Using Digital Devices
Legal Framework
International Perspective
India – Information Technology Act 2000 (Sections 66E, 67) and Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 354C (voyeurism), 66E (privacy violation).
United Kingdom – Sexual Offences Act 2003, specifically Section 67 on voyeurism and Section 1 on voyeuristic filming.
United States – Various state laws criminalizing “video voyeurism” (often Section 180.1 in California Penal Code) and federal wiretap/privacy statutes.
Australia – Crimes Act and Surveillance Devices Act criminalizing filming or observing people without consent for sexual purposes.
Digital voyeurism is increasingly recognized as a serious criminal offense, especially where smartphones, hidden cameras, or apps are used to capture images without consent.
Case 1: India – State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Patel (2018)
Facts:
The accused installed a hidden camera in a hostel washroom to capture private images of female residents.
Images were shared online via social media.
Legal Basis:
IPC Section 354C (voyeurism), Section 66E of IT Act (violation of privacy).
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment with fines.
Court ordered permanent removal of images from online platforms.
Significance:
First high-profile digital voyeurism case in Maharashtra.
Reinforced that digital devices do not reduce the severity of privacy violation.
Case 2: United Kingdom – R v. Wilkins (2017)
Facts:
Defendant secretly filmed under women’s skirts in a shopping mall using a smartphone.
Footage was stored on the phone and partially shared via messaging apps.
Legal Basis:
Sexual Offences Act 2003, Section 67 (voyeurism).
Outcome:
Convicted, sentenced to 2 years imprisonment and placed on the Sex Offenders Register.
Significance:
UK courts treat mobile phone voyeurism as serious, even in public spaces, emphasizing consent.
Sharing footage electronically aggravates the offense.
Case 3: United States – People v. Blanchard (California, 2016)
Facts:
Defendant installed hidden cameras in a residential property to record women changing clothes.
Footage was saved digitally and used to coerce victims for sexual favors.
Legal Basis:
California Penal Code Section 647(j) – video voyeurism.
Wiretap and privacy laws.
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to 4 years imprisonment and mandatory counseling.
Digital devices were seized, and all footage destroyed.
Significance:
First case in California combining voyeurism with coercion via digital devices.
Set precedent for handling digital evidence in voyeurism cases.
Case 4: Australia – R v. Clark (New South Wales, 2015)
Facts:
Accused filmed female colleagues using his mobile phone in office toilets and changing areas.
Some images were uploaded to a private social media group.
Legal Basis:
Crimes Act NSW 1900, Sections 91K–91P (offensive filming and voyeurism).
Outcome:
Convicted, 3 years imprisonment, and removal from employment.
Court emphasized harm to psychological well-being of victims.
Significance:
Demonstrates how workplace voyeurism via smartphones is treated as a severe criminal offense.
Case 5: India – State of Kerala v. Rajesh Kumar (2019)
Facts:
Accused secretly filmed women in a fitness center using a smart device embedded in gym equipment.
Footage stored on cloud storage and later leaked online.
Legal Basis:
IPC Section 354C, IT Act Section 66E (privacy violation).
Outcome:
Sentenced to 6 years imprisonment, fined ₹2 lakh, and prohibited from accessing internet-enabled devices for 5 years.
Significance:
First Kerala case addressing cloud storage voyeurism, showing courts adapt to evolving digital technology.
Case 6: Japan – Tokyo District Court v. Anonymous (2018)
Facts:
Defendant hid miniature cameras in train carriages to record women’s legs and undergarments.
Images stored on SD cards and sold to websites.
Legal Basis:
Japan Penal Code Articles 223-2 and 175 (privacy invasion, obscenity).
Outcome:
Convicted, sentenced to 3 years imprisonment, plus confiscation of devices and online revenue.
Significance:
Japan has a large number of “upskirt filming” cases; court emphasized commercial exploitation of voyeuristic content as aggravating factor.
Case 7: South Korea – “Nth Room” Case (2020)
Facts:
Multiple perpetrators operated digital chatrooms (“Nth Room”) sharing sexual videos obtained via blackmail and hidden cameras.
Victims were coerced into performing sexual acts on camera.
Legal Basis:
Criminal Law Articles 14, 23, 24 (sexual exploitation), and Information and Communications Network Act (illegal distribution).
Outcome:
Main operators sentenced to 40–40.5 years imprisonment.
Hundreds of accomplices received 5–15 years imprisonment.
Significance:
One of the largest digital voyeurism cases in the world.
Showed how digital platforms facilitate large-scale voyeuristic abuse.
Prompted legal reforms in South Korea criminalizing sexual exploitation and digital voyeurism more harshly.
Key Observations Across Cases
Consent is Central: All jurisdictions emphasize lack of consent as the core element of criminal liability.
Digital Devices Amplify Severity: Smartphones, hidden cameras, cloud storage, and online distribution make voyeurism more harmful.
Severe Penalties for Distribution: Sharing images online or commercially aggravates sentences.
Global Trend: Courts worldwide are increasingly adapting old voyeurism laws to modern technology.
Psychological Harm Considered: Many sentences emphasize victim trauma, not just physical invasion.
Emerging Legal Tools: Cybercrime laws (IT Act, Information and Communications Network Act) are increasingly used to prosecute digital voyeurism.
RELATED Blog
comments