Smile, you are on camera!” The good-old phrase has taken a predatory tone in the era of social media. For women in particular, navigating public space now often involves the risk of being filmed and uploaded online without consent.
And as the legal system struggles to steer this thin line between freedom of expression and right to privacy, experts warn that the current regulations are insufficiently equipped to monitor a world where anyone could be a walking camera and everything is a content opportunity.
Take the recent Attukal Pongala festival, where thousands of women immersed in devotion lined the streets of Thiruvananthapuram. Some preying social media cameras and jostling content creators with shady intentions turned out to be a menace, to say the least.
Clearly, some of the video clips uploaded crossed the line of documentation, raising questions about the privacy and modesty of women in the public sphere. Moreover, the responses to some of the questionable ‘content’ received online revealed how voyeuristic tendencies are celebrated by a section of Kerala society.
The debate that ensued has also raised a crucial question: where does the law draw the line between photographing a public event and violating an individual’s dignity?
Actor Mala Parvathy says that while she understands that content creators are also trying to make a living, there are instances where the way women are filmed becomes voyeuristic.
“When some people shoot from certain angles or zoom in excessively, it becomes noticeable,” she says.
“Often, we do not even realise we are being filmed, we only come to know when the video appears online.”
Parvathy recalls an incident where a video clip of her was circulated online. “Once, someone filmed me while I was eating during an event at actor Hareesh Peradi’s place,” she says.
“Later, a video that was being circulated appeared to focus on my body, especially projecting my stomach.”
Parvathy adds that this was not an isolated incident. “I have experienced this several times,” she says. “Many take screenshots, too, and circulate them in WhatsApp groups, especially when the footage is shot in certain angles. I have complained to the police in some instances.”
Evidence and cybercrime
Police Cyberdrome Sub-Inspector A M Dara explains that when a video of a woman is shot and transmitted online without consent, the matter falls under cybercrime.
“Under the IT Act, this can be a violation. Private videos should not be posted without consent,” he says.
The officer notes a rise in such “problematic content” online. “However, we don’t see a big surge in official complaints. Moreover, it seems people are urged to enjoy such things,” he adds.
Once a complaint is received, the police begin the investigation process by identifying the platform where the content was posted and collecting digital traces. “A written complaint along with printouts of the social media crime is enough to start the process,” says Dara.
Dara stresses that evidence plays a crucial role in cybercrime investigations. “Many complainants approach the police with only screenshots, which may not always be sufficient,” he says.
“Even comments under the post are important. If other users supported the victim in the comment section, that can strengthen the case. It’s important to collect the information needed to file a case.”
Sometimes, collecting evidence becomes difficult when the original comment or post is deleted. In such cases, Dara notes that witnesses may also play a role. “Viewers who supported the victim in comments can also be brought as witnesses,” he says.
One big challenge, the officer admits, is anonymity on the internet. “People can post content using fake accounts or VPN technology. In such cases, the platforms should cooperate,” says Dara.
While legal action is possible, punishment depends on the nature of the content. “If private content is published, punishment can be three to seven years of imprisonment,” the officer explains.
“But sometimes the issue is whether the video in question is private content or something recorded in a public place where filming is allowed.”
The thin legal line
High Court lawyer Sreerag Shylan points to “a very thin legal boundary”. “It is not always illegal to take photos of someone during public events,” he says. “For instance, in the context of Attukal Pongala, the presence of numerous cameras is a given at such a large-scale event.”
If the law becomes too strict, it may affect freedom of speech and expression. “Therefore, drawing a clear line is difficult,” he says.
This, Sreerag adds, was clarified through judicial interpretation as well. “The Kerala High Court, in 2024, observed that if a person is in a place where they are normally expected to be visible, taking their picture does not fall under voyeurism,” he notes.
“Voyeurism will apply only when the photo or video of a woman is taken while she is engaged in a private act.”
Notably, there are many who don’t mind their videos being uploaded, as it gives them visibility. “To be frank, clips help us get more reach and followers. It’s a popularity boost,” says a budding social media personality who was at the recent Pongala.
Now, here comes the crucial word: consent. “If a woman says that she does not consent to her visual being recorded, then the act becomes illegal,” says Sreerag.
“Similarly, if someone deliberately zooms in on private body parts, the case comes under the relevant provisions of the IT Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.”
Sreerag notes that such cases may not always fall strictly under voyeurism but can still attract criminal charges. “Usually, charges are filed under provisions relating to outraging modesty. Section 354C deals with voyeurism and carries punishment up to three years imprisonment, which can extend to seven years for repeat offences. Section of the IT Act also applies when such images are transmitted online.”
The gendered lens
Women’s rights lawyer Sandhya J says the issue cannot — and should not — be viewed through a technical legal lens. “At its core, it is about objectifying women,” she says.
In fact, videos of unsuspecting women being filmed while travelling on public transport are also nowadays being circulated online.
“Beyond legality, such incidents cause psychological impact,” says Sandhya. One of the major problems people, especially women, face today is the feeling that one is always being watched.”
This sense of being “under surveillance” creates an unhealthy social situation “We can’t expect people to behave as if they are perennially under the CCTV camera. This will affect individuality, self-expression, and privacy,” she says.
Sandhya also points out that many women are hesitant to deal with it legally, thinking it’s not worth the rigmarole. “Because of this attitude, many cases go unreported,” she adds.
“What we need is a stronger, hassle-free and victim-friendly law enforcement mechanism for cybercrimes. We are in the AI age — the ‘system’ urgently needs an update.”
Content vs discontent
As smartphones and content-driven platforms dominate daily life, the line between documentation and intrusion at public events is increasingly blurred. At large gatherings like, the presence of numerous cameras is inevitable, making photography a routine part of the event. Legal experts describe this as a “very thin legal boundary” — capturing visuals in public spaces is not always illegal. Voyeurism applies only when images are captured of a woman engaged in a private act. If a woman explicitly objects to being recorded, continuing to film or photograph her can become illegal. Zooming in on private body parts or capturing images in a sexually intrusive manner can attract charges.
What the law says
Section 354C (Voyeurism) provides punishment of up to three years’ imprisonment, extendable
to seven years for repeat offences.
Section 66E of the IT Act applies when such images are shared or transmitted online