The now-defunct Instagram account “Bangalore Metro Chicks” has again sparked concerns about digital voyeurism, consent and the complicity of social media platforms. The account featured sexually suggestive videos of unaware women travelling through Bengaluru's metro system. These videos were a set of non-consensual recordings curated to sexually objectify these unsuspecting women. Despite the Metro being a public space, the women were subjected to a form of surveillance that is indeed private in nature. This act of capturing of body without consent for gratification turned these ordinary metro rides into an arena of digital violation.
Public Acts V. Private Acts
Under Section 77 of the BNS, voyeurism is criminalised when someone watches or captures somebody engaged in a private act without the consent of the person concerned. However, now a question arises whether the 'metro chicks' shots were indeed an act of voyeurism since an argument follows that the travelling woman were not engaged in a private act which is an essential for voyeurism under the definition. The answer is Yes, affirmed in the case of Sonu Billa Case where the bodily privacy does not cease in public spaces. To determine voyeurism the intent behind the act which is objectification and sexual gratification, is considered crucial and is the basis. The images were captured for voyeuristic pleasure without consent and often accompanied with captions that sexualised the ordinary movements.
Voyeurism, therefore, is not restricted by territory but defined by consent and intent.
Understanding Platform Liability
What gives this incident broader significance is the role played by Instagram, the platform that hosted the account. A “safe harbour” is granted to intermediaries for third-party content under Section 79 of the IT Act. Though this grant is conditional. The intermediary must not initiate or modify the transmission of content, must exercise due diligence, and must act swiftly when notified of unlawful content. According to the IT Rules under Rule 3(1)(b)(ii), invasion of privacy, including bodily privacy, has been discouraged from being displayed. Once an intermediary is notified or becomes aware of such content, it has a legal duty to remove or disable access to it. Failure to do so results in the forfeiture of its safe harbour status.
Different Mediums, Same Harm
This is not the first time the platform has been involved in such cases. In the Bois Locker Room incident, teen boys shared morphed images of underage girls and used sexually violent comments within a private group chat. While indeed the settings differ between private group chat and a public page, the common intent of voyeuristic pleasure seen through the non-consensual sexual content, the intermediary had a legal and ethical obligation to act once made aware.
Both the cases mentioned in this piece is linked through the core violation of non-consensual sexual content being disseminated via digital intermediaries. The difference lies not in the severity of harm but in the evolution of method. Voyeurism is now more public and normalised.
While arguably, the Bois Locker Room chats were more textual than covert in nature. Bangalore Metro Chicks, on the other hand, used real clippings shot in public and through weaponizing the platform's visibility maximised reach.
A Reality Check: The Deterrence Effect
Despite clear criminalisation under BNS and obligations under IT Rules, the frequency of voyeurism points to a lack of deterrence. As mentioned earlier in brief, the intermediaries are immune by default: their immunity depends on their compliance with procedural safeguards. Though the enforcement is weak and convictions are rare. Moreover, the rapid spread and anonymity provided by digital platforms give a sense of thrill and security to perpetrators.
Foreign Approaches
A marked legal course of action has been undertaken by some jurisdictions in the recent years. Here is one example, the Voyeurism (Offences) Act of the United Kingdom, 2019, has criminalized the act of voyeurism even in a public place by focusing on the element of consent over place. Parallelly, United Kingdom and the United States criminalise non-consensual recordings through the Sexual Offences Act of 2003 and Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004 in the United Kingdom and the United States respectively. These laws are an example of a modern understanding of what constitutes an extension of privacy: it is not just physical isolation, but all the other limits of the person, digital integrity, and consent. In India, a more limited version of interpretations still exists, which puts voyeurism primarily in situations in which the offense exists in a closed environment, although the damage is mostly caused in an open, algorithmically facilitated online environment as seen in our highlighted case.
Suggestions
The emphasis must shift from the territorial limitations to the mental violation inflicted by these acts. Moreover, platforms should have stricter standards of accountability. The law must demand clear grievance redressal timelines, transparent takedown procedures, and stronger penalties for inaction. Education campaigns targeting youth and men in particular are also essential to reshape the cultural norms that trivialise voyeurism as “harmless fun.”Bangalore Metro Chicks is not just an incident of digital indecency; it is like a wake-up call. The desire to become a voyeur is dressed in the garb of humour, anonymity and virality, but the effects are personally deep-seated. Between Indian law and social morality and modern reality, there will be an ostentatious breach unless quick legislative action steps in.
Author is Student at National Law University, Lucknow
Views Are Personal.