Introduction
“Whoever, intentionally or knowingly captures, publishes or transmits the image of a private area of any person without his or her consent, under circumstances violating the privacy of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine not exceeding two lakh rupees, or with both.”
What Does Section 66E of the IT Act Aim to Protect?
Section 66E aims to protect digital privacy. It targets intentional and knowing acts that capture, publish, or transmit private images without consent. The focus is narrow but strict. The law does not punish ordinary communication or accidental sharing. Instead, it is designed to penalize acts of digital voyeurism.
Courts have underlined two conditions for liability. First, there must be absence of consent. Second, the act must take place under circumstances that violate privacy. Only when both conditions are present does Section 66E apply.
How Did the Karnataka High Court Interpret Section 66E in 2025?
In Merely Sending Messages Containing Profanity Not Stalking, Karnataka High Court (2025), the court faced a case involving abusive text messages. The prosecution claimed the act amounted to stalking under the IPC and also a violation of Section 66E.
The High Court disagreed. It held that sending profanity-laden messages does not attract Section 66E unless there is evidence of capturing or transmitting images of private areas without consent. The court clarified that the provision deals only with unauthorized digital images of “private areas,” not offensive words.
This decision narrowed the scope of Section 66E and emphasized its unique focus on privacy violations.
What Are the Essential Ingredients of Section 66E?
Courts have repeatedly explained the three key ingredients of Section 66E.
- The act must be intentional or knowing.
- The image must involve a “private area” as defined in the statute.
- The act must be without consent and in circumstances that violate privacy.
Even if an image is present, the offence is not complete unless privacy is actually breached. For example, if the image does not reveal the private area as defined under the law, Section 66E cannot apply.
The law defines “private area” as the naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast. Courts insist on strict proof that such areas were captured or transmitted without consent.
What Penalties Apply Under Section 66E?
Courts have reaffirmed that Section 66E prescribes punishment of up to three years of imprisonment or a fine of up to two lakh rupees, or both. This shows the seriousness with which the legislature views privacy violations in cyberspace.
However, courts also stress that the section should not be stretched beyond its limits. It is not intended to punish harmless photography, consensual sharing, or ordinary online chats. Its strict penalties apply only to intentional acts that truly breach digital privacy.
How Do Courts Differentiate Section 66E from Other IT Act Provisions?
Judgments have highlighted that Section 66E is distinct from other IT Act provisions like those dealing with obscene content or hacking. Its scope is strictly limited to privacy violations through images of private areas.
Other offences may apply to transmission of obscene content or identity theft. Section 66E applies only when the act specifically intrudes upon bodily privacy.
The courts have also compared Section 66E with IPC provisions. For instance, Section 354C IPC (voyeurism) and Section 509 IPC (insulting the modesty of a woman) may overlap. But unlike these provisions, Section 66E has a more stringent threshold. The focus is not on gestures, words, or general images, but only on private areas captured without consent.
How Do Courts Interpret Consent and Privacy in Section 66E?
Consent is central to Section 66E. If a person consents to the capture or sharing of private images, the provision does not apply. Yet, courts closely examine the nature of consent. It must be free, voluntary, and informed.
Equally important is the phrase “circumstances violating privacy.” Courts look at the context. Images taken in bathrooms, bedrooms, or other private spaces fall within this phrase. In contrast, if privacy is not expected in the setting, then Section 66E does not apply even if an image is taken.
This careful interpretation prevents misuse. It ensures only genuine privacy intrusions are penalized.
What Is the Judicial View on Compromise and Settlement in Section 66E Cases?
In several cases, parties involved in personal disputes have later reached settlements. High Courts have had to decide whether to quash FIRs in such situations.
For example, in cases available on Casemine (2024–2025 search results for Section 66E IPC/IT Act), courts exercised discretion. They considered the nature of the relationship, the act itself, and the conduct of parties. If liability under Section 66E was not clearly established, or mitigating factors existed, FIRs were quashed.
This approach shows that while Section 66E is strict, courts balance enforcement with fairness. They prevent misuse of criminal law in private disputes.
What Broader Legal Principles Have Courts Established?
Through their rulings, courts have clarified several principles:
- Section 66E protects digital privacy and penalizes acts similar to voyeurism.
- Proof of lack of consent and circumstances violating privacy is essential.
- Ordinary communication or abusive language does not attract the section.
- The provision is distinct from other IT Act and IPC offences, though overlaps exist.
These principles ensure the law is not misused. They protect genuine victims while preventing criminalization of harmless acts.
How Does Section 66E Protect Digital Privacy?
Section 66E represents a legislative effort to keep up with the digital era. With smartphones and internet sharing, privacy violations can happen instantly. This section ensures the law shields individuals from such harm.
By limiting liability to intentional acts involving private areas, the section strikes a balance. It punishes serious intrusions but excludes accidental or consensual acts. This balance has been reinforced by judicial interpretation.
Courts have also linked Section 66E to the constitutional right to privacy under Article 21. By criminalizing digital intrusions, the section gives practical effect to this fundamental right.
Why Did Courts Emphasize Narrow Interpretation in 2024–2025?
Recent judgments, including the Karnataka High Court decision of 2025, highlight why narrow interpretation is necessary. If the section were applied broadly, it could criminalize everyday interactions. By keeping the focus on private areas, intent, and consent, courts maintain fairness.
This approach ensures that Section 66E is not a tool for harassment. Instead, it remains a shield for protecting dignity and privacy in cyberspace.
For any specific query call at +91 – 8569843472
Conclusion
The latest judgments show that Section 66E is a targeted provision against digital voyeurism. It requires intent, lack of consent, and privacy violation. Courts have rejected attempts to extend it to abusive messages or harmless communications.
The penalties are serious, imprisonment up to three years and a fine of two lakh rupees. Yet, courts also recognize settlement and compromise in appropriate cases.
By carefully interpreting Section 66E, Indian courts have drawn a line. They punish intentional breaches of digital privacy but prevent overreach. This balance protects individuals while safeguarding against misuse of the law.
