ROLE OF WOMEN IN POVERTY ALLEVIATION AND POVERTY

ERADICATION

Submitted To:
DR. (MRS.) KIRAN KORI
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, WOMEN AND LAW

Submitted By:
UTKARSHANI SRIVASTAVA
SEMESTER X, SECTION:B, ROLL
NO: 170
B.A.LLB.(HONOURS)
019/2019/2159

Date of Submission: 4th April, 2024

“Hidayatullah National Law University ”

“UPARWARA POST, ABHANPUR, NEW RAIPUR-492002 (C.G.) ”

 “DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY

I, Utkarshani Srivastava, an tenth semester student with the roll number 170, hereby confirm
that this project is entirely my own work.”

Utkarshani Srivastava

Semester: X

Section: B

Roll No: 170”

 INTRODUCTION

There isn't a single society that does not include crime in some form because it is such an
integral element of society.1 Similarly, crime against women has existed in this civilization
from prehistoric times to the present. Cybervoyeurism is considered a novel type of cybersex
crime nowadays, despite the fact that it has been around for a long. This is because its
features are constantly changing. Although internet voyeurism is illegal in India, because to
technology, it may now be easily carried out virtually and often isn't against the law. To
counter this kind of modern sex crime, laws and regulations must be modified.2

DEFINITION

Voyeurism can be defined as either a sexual disorder or as a behavior. According to the

Canadian Oxford Dictionary, a voyeur is "“a person who derives sexual gratification from the
covert observation of others as they undress or engage in sexual activities." The behavior in
this instance is motivated by three factors: sexual enjoyment, the private and intimate
character of what is witnessed, and the surreptitious nature of the observations. In addition to
creating voyeuristic photographs, voyeuristic behavior can also involve sharing voyeuristic
visual representations with other people.
Voyeurism is the observation of sexual activity or nudity that is coupled with excitation of
the senses. Voyeurism must be defined by the desire to experience sexual delight from
witnessing unsuspecting people—typically strangers—who are nude or engaging in sexual
activity in order to be labeled as a sexual disorder or paraphilia.3
Definition In India

The IPC defines "voyeurism" under Section 354C. However, Section 66E of the IT Act 2008
clearly defines cyber voyeurism as a computer-related offence. The electronic transfer of
pictures of someone doing a private act—like sexual intimacy or other sexual act—in
situations when that person has a legitimate expectation of privacy is known as cyber
voyeurism.

1
Crime-of-voyeurism-and-stalking-in-India.pdf. Available at:
https://www.ijlmh.com/wp-content/uploads/Crime-of-Voyeurism-and-Stalking-in-India.pdf (Accessed: 04
April 2024).
2
Dubey, B. (2021) Voyeurism in India: How to combat, Live Law. Available at:
https://www.livelaw.in/columns/cyber-voyeurism-information-technologyit-act-indian-penal-codeipc-175031
(Accessed: 04 April 2024).
3
Quoted in Meg S. Kaplan and Richard B. Krueger, “Voyeurism: Psychopathology and Theory” in Sexual
Deviance: Theory, Assessment and Treatment (New York: The Guilford Press, 1997), pp. 297-310, at p. 297.
 CONCEPTUALIZING A VOYEURISM OFFENCE

The harm that a voyeurism scheme is meant to remedy must be taken into account when
defending its inclusion in the Criminal Code. The violation of a citizen's right to privacy in a
free and democratic society might be considered the injury; on the other hand, voyeurism can
be considered a sexual offense.

(a) As a violation of privacy

The relationship between the individual citizen and the state is taken into
consideration by the Constitution while addressing privacy rights. Jurisprudence has
examined the question of what conditions lead to a "reasonable expectation of
privacy" by citizens who are susceptible to state or state-affiliated actors' searches and
seizures. The concept of a victim's reasonable expectation of privacy determines an
accused person's responsibility for voyeurism-related offenses both offline and online.
However, in their dissenting opinions in the instances of R v. Jarvis4 and Gill v.
Hearst5 Publishing Company, Justices Huscroft and Carter addressed the topic of
whether conditions make a victim's expectation of privacy fair or unjustified.

In order to clarify the difference between viewable in public and viewable by

reproduction, they pointed out that a couple's public kissing or other sexual act in
front of a small group of people does not imply that they gave their consent to be seen
by millions of people who are reading defendant's magazine. like a mother nursing her
child in the open. Although it is absurd to expect not to be seen in public, she does
have a legitimate expectation of privacy that she won't be secretly videotaped for sex
(b) Being a sexual offense

The purpose of the observation (e.g., sexual arousal of the voyeur) or, alternatively,
the nature of the subject observed (e.g., viewing or recording the victim's sexual
organs or the victim engaged in explicit sexual activity) are the two sources (and in
any given case, both may be operational) that give rise to the sexual aspect of the
offence. In this case, the policy rationale for outlawing voyeurism is that it keeps one

4
R v Jarvis, 2019 SCC 10 (Jarvis)
5
Gill v. Hearst Publishing Co., 253 P.2d 441 (1953)
 private person from sexually abusing another. Even if the victim is unaware of it, the
sexual exploitation starts as soon as the voyeur watches or records them6.

(c) Intersection of a Sexual Offense and a Privacy Offense: Common Ground

There are two ways to evaluate the harm that a voyeurism violation is intended to
alleviate. From a policy standpoint, one may contend that when a citizen's privacy is
violated together with their physical or sexual integrity, the state's interests in
safeguarding that citizen's privacy and preventing their sexual exploitation coincide.
Second, the frequency of a given offense is taken into consideration when evaluating
harm. Due to the covert nature of voyeurism, victims typically aren't aware that
they've been watched or videotaped, which causes voyeuristic behavior to go
unreported.7

EXPLORING THE COMPLEXITIES: UNDERSTANDING THE

FACTORS BEHIND VOYEURISM IN INDIA

A reflection of the power structures in society is voyeurism. In India, men are frequently in
positions of authority, which may give them the impression that they have a right to regulate
and watch women's bodies. There is a gendered voyeurism that results from men viewing
women as objects of desire. Indian men are conditioned to think they are entitled to rule and
dominate women. Men who feel entitled to watch women without getting permission may
develop voyeuristic tendencies as a result of this conditioning. In Indian media, women are
frequently sexualized, which causes their bodies to be objectified. Men who perceive women
as things to be observed may develop voyeuristic tendencies as a result of this
objectification.8 In India it is for these reasons Voyeurism is gender specific, however the
reason for voyeurism in India is because:

6
Dubey, B. (2021) Voyeurism in India: How to combat, Live Law. Available at:
https://www.livelaw.in/columns/cyber-voyeurism-information-technologyit-act-indian-penal-codeipc-175031
(Accessed: 04 April 2024).
7
What does perils of the sea mean in marine insurance? (no date) icon. Available at:
https://sme.icicilombard.com/blogs/what-does-perils-of-the-sea-mean-in-marine-insurance (Accessed: 04
April 2024).
8
Crime-of-voyeurism-and-stalking-in-India.pdf. Available at:
https://www.ijlmh.com/wp-content/uploads/Crime-of-Voyeurism-and-Stalking-in-India.pdf (Accessed: 04
April 2024).
 1. Patriarchal Society: Women are frequently viewed as inferior to men in India's
patriarchal society. Men who have this mindset may develop voyeuristic tendencies
because they believe they have a right to dominate and control women's bodies.

2. Sexual Repression: When it comes to sexuality, Indian society is conservative. Sexual

suppression can result from open discussions about sexuality being taboo.
Suppressed sexual impulses can sometimes be expressed as voyeurism.

3. Objectification of Women: Indian media and ads frequently objectify women. Men's
perception of women as objects to be seen and studied might result in voyeuristic
tendencies due to the objectification of women's bodies.

Preconceptions Within India's Criminal Justice Framework : The criminal justice system
in India exhibits prejudice in favour of men, even in situations involving voyeurism.
Women's testimonies are frequently dismissed and they are frequently held accountable for
being the victims. Furthermore, it creates a misogynistic culture and sends the incorrect
message when male criminals receive low sentencing.
Furthermore, the cases of voyeurism involving members of the lower classes are frequently
underreported and underprosecuted. This is a result of their lack of access to the same tools
for pursuing legal action as people from higher social classes.
Voyeurism charges in India might take years to conclude due to the country's infamously
slow court system. In addition, the legal system favors the accused and has several flaws and
technicalities that can be taken advantage of to evade prosecution.

JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVES: ANALYZING THE LEGAL APPROACH TO THE

OFFENSE OF VOYEURISM IN INDIA

The Indian courts have taken an approach towards ensuring the right to privacy is maintained
of every person. The courts have also extended the interpretation of the right to privacy to
also mean “right to be left alone”.9 On these lines of interpretation in the 2019 case of State v
Shailesh10 reaffirmed it and also held that although voyeurism amuses men in a inept manner,
it traumatizes women's minds. These acts infringe upon women's right to privacy, exposing
them to dangerous situations in places that are frequently intended to be safe for them.
Due to the importance of such principle the court has time and again condemned voyeurism.
In 2017 Kalandi Charan Lenka v. State of Orissa,11 In order to sexually exploit the girl, the

9
R. Rajgopal v. the State of Tamil Nadu
10
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shailesh Kumar, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8318
11
Kalandi Charan Lenka v. State of Orissa
defendant reportedly intimidated her and made a fake profile in her name.
The defendant in Rahul v. State (2020)12 filed an appeal after the trial court found him guilty
of breaking Sections 376(2)(n), 354C, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.However, in
both cases, the court upheld the ruling of the lower court, finding the accused guilty of both
rape and filming the crime while snapping images of the victim in her nude state.

Evaluating Limitations: A Critical Examination of the Current Framework and its

Impediments

Since intermediaries are involved, internet voyeurism becomes an offense very quickly.
The primary problem comes when trying to hold these intermediaries accountable. Because
intermediaries are granted safe harbor immunity under Section 79 of the IT Act, they are not
liable if a third party uploads an objectionable image to their website, provided that the
intermediary does not start the transmission, choose or alter the image, or have active
knowledge of the transmission."

.In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court defined "active knowledge" and
ruled that courts and government organizations are far more qualified than internet platforms
to determine whether any behavior or content is unlawful. The court further clarified that the
"active knowledge" that gave rise to intermediaries' liability was the moment these
intermediaries got a take-down request from the government and, even after, continued to be
liable for the electronic records or information they refused to erase. The way active
knowledge is interpreted in this situation is problematic. Since any image on the internet
spreads quickly and is never deleted, even if it is taken down from all websites, it will still
remain somewhere in the storage of any electronic devices used by another person. This is
why taking down an image in cases of cyber voyeurism requires a lengthy process from the
authorities.

Innovative Approaches: Exploring Potential Solutions And Drawing Insights From

Western Jurisdictions
One way to address these concerns could be to make some changes to the legislation. Due to
the Information Technology Act of 2008, intermediaries are subject to strict responsibility if
their information contains child pornography or encourages minors to engage in sexual
activity. Safe harbour liability poses practical challenges where the intermediaries failed to
fulfil their commitments with respect to cyber voyeurism, hence limiting absolute liability to
child pornography and offering protection for other sexual activities is not feasible.
12
Rahul v. State of Kerala, 2017 SCC OnLine Ker 13479
Therefore, it would be beneficial to broaden the scope of the provision to include all types of
sexual content and subject parties to strict liability in order to reduce the incidence of
cybervoyeurism.

CONCLUSION

In India, voyeurism is a severe problem that is gender-specific, primarily affecting women as

victims. It is imperative to address these fundamental problems in order to lessen voyeuristic
tendencies and build a society that is more egalitarian and kind.

It is a severe criminal offense that may leave the victim with long-term emotional and
psychological problems. The Indian criminal justice system's biases might make it
challenging for victims to receive justice. This issue is exacerbated by biases related to
gender, class, and the law. Addressing these biases and ensuring that victims of voyeurism
are given the help and justice they need is vital in creating a more equal and just society.

Another significant element is India's legal system, which frequently falls short of providing
proper protection for voyeurism victims. Although voyeurism and other forms of sexual
harassment are illegal, these laws are frequently not properly enforced.