Section 66E
Punishment for Violation of Privacy
Original Text
Simplified
Common Queries
Legal Evolution
Section 66E was added by the 2008 Amendment as the digital explosion created new forms of privacy invasion that the IPC had not anticipated. The IPC had no specific voyeurism provision (BNS Section 77 fills that gap now). Pre-2008, prosecutors relied on Sections 292-294 IPC (obscenity) and Section 509 IPC (words or gestures outraging modesty), which were imperfect fits. The provision has become increasingly important with the proliferation of smartphones, hidden cameras, and social media — the three technologies that transformed voyeurism from a rare to a common offence.
Key Amendments
Inserted by IT (Amendment) Act 2008 — no equivalent in original IT Act 2000.
Broader than IPC obscenity provisions — focuses on privacy violation, not obscenity per se.
BNS Section 77 now also covers voyeurism in the general criminal law context.
Landmark Precedents
Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. State of UP (2022)
Section 66E applied to workplace hidden camera case; HC upheld non-bailable nature of offence and refused bail given clear privacy violation.