Delhi HC Issues A Ruling For The Privacy Of People In Public & Private Bathrooms

In a ruling on Thursday, the Delhi High Court declared that taking a bath in a bathroom, whether it's public or private, is a personal and private activity. Even if the bathroom only has a curtain instead of a door, if someone were to peek inside while a woman is bathing, it would constitute the criminal offense of voyeurism under Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma explained that a woman bathing in an enclosed bathroom has a reasonable expectation of privacy and should not be observed or monitored.

Justice Sharma was hearing an appeal submitted by a convict named Sonu @ Billa, who had been found guilty by a trial court under Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 12 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The accused Sonu was sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹20,000. The charges were brought against him in September 2014 when a minor girl accused him of sexually harassing her. She claimed that the accused would make sexual advances toward her and would stand outside the bathroom while she took a bath, making lewd gestures, comments, and remarks.

During the proceedings, Sonu's lawyer contended that the victim's act of bathing in the open bathroom located outside her jhuggi made it equivalent to taking a dip in holy rivers, water parks, swimming pools, or lakes. Upon reviewing the case, Justice Sharma disagreed, stating that although the bathroom was situated in an open area, it did not qualify as an open public space because it had walls and a covered entrance. She further noted that taking a holy dip at a religious site could not be equated with taking a bath in a closed bathroom where a woman expects privacy.

Justice Sharma emphasized that even in the case of bathing in an open public space, it is reasonable to expect that photographs or videos of women should not be taken or circulated.

The bench concluded that the accused's actions violated the victim's privacy, and the trial court ruling was sound. However, the bench overturned the conviction under the POCSO act, stating that the prosecution failed to establish that the victim was a minor below the age of 18.