BACK TO SECTIONS(2019) 13 SCC 1
Bailable (1st conviction) / Non-Bailable (2nd conviction)Cognizable: CognizableMagistrate First Class
Reform Highlights
1
Renumbered from IPC 354C to BNS 77.
2
The non-consensual dissemination limb — covering 'revenge porn' — explicitly preserved.
3
Tiered punishment maintained: bailable for first offence, non-bailable thereafter.
THE STATUTE
The Clause
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 offender or by any other person at the behest of the offender or disseminates such image shall be punished.
Legal Commentary
Section 77 protects a woman's bodily privacy in both physical and digital dimensions. The section covers three forms of violation: watching a woman in a private act without her knowledge or consent, capturing (filming or photographing) such an act, and disseminating such images even if their capture was consented to. The phrase 'private act' is defined to include acts where a person's genitals, buttocks, or breasts are exposed or covered only by underwear — covering situations in changing rooms, washrooms, bedrooms, and medical settings. The 'reasonable expectation of privacy' standard is the legal touchstone: recording someone in a public park is not voyeurism, but recording them through a private window or in a bathroom is. The most legally innovative element of Section 77 is the third limb — dissemination without consent. If a woman consensually allows herself to be filmed in a private context, but the person then shares that footage without her permission, the act of sharing is itself the offence. This directly addresses the revenge porn phenomenon — the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, a form of digital sexual abuse that causes severe psychological harm. The tiered punishment (bailable and lower for first-time, non-bailable and higher for second) reflects the legislature's intention to treat repeat offenders far more harshly.
Landmark Precedents
Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh (2019)
RELEVANCE
While primarily a BNS 69-type case, the Supreme Court's detailed discussion of privacy violations and deceptive consent is foundational to understanding BNS 77's 'reasonable expectation' standard.
Case Simulations
"Installing a hidden camera in a changing room or gym washroom — voyeurism under BNS 77."
"Distributing private photos of a woman that were taken with her consent but shared without permission — the sharing itself is the offence under BNS 77."
"A landlord who places a camera in a female tenant's bathroom — BNS 77, non-cognizable for first offence but punishable."
"Filming a woman through her window using a zoom lens while she is undressing in her bedroom — BNS 77."
Expert Insights
The act must involve a 'private act' where there is a 'reasonable expectation of not being observed'. Recording in a public park may not be voyeurism, but recording in a private changing room or bedroom is. Context determines the expectation of privacy.
Under BNS 77, if she consented to the capture but not the dissemination, the act of sharing is itself the offence. This is the key provision addressing revenge porn — consent to capture does not imply consent to distribute.
Yes, absolutely. A person staying in rented accommodation has a clear reasonable expectation of privacy in a bedroom or bathroom. Placing a hidden camera in such a space and recording a guest constitutes voyeurism under BNS 77.