In the last few years, a number of cases involving hidden cameras have been reported in India. These cases, which have received substantial media coverage, have also brought to the forefront the undesirable consequences of usage of hidden cameras.

A couple of years ago, the Tehelka scam took the country by storm, where BJP’s Bangaru Lakshman was recorded, by the means of a spy camera, as accepting money, which was later telecast by all major television channels. A DPS student recorded a fellow girl student indulging in sexual activities with him on his mobile phone camera. This MMS was forwarded to mobile phones all over the country and was splashed on the internet. This case triggered a series of arrests and created a huge controversy. Immediately thereafter, the media came across pictures of actors Kareena and Shahid Kapur in a lip-lock. These pictures were extracted from a circulated MMS, which was shot by an individual sitting on their adjoining table in the same restaurant as them. This case led to another controversy. Thereafter, Tamil actress Trisha was in the news as pictures of her in the bath were circulated on the internet. These were also shot using a spy camera.

Normally people use hidden camera to gather information for general purposes, for circulation among friends and family, for corporate purposes and also for revenge and other related objectives. Hidden cameras today have become crucial tools in the operations of the paparazzi.

All these cases have demonstrated that the use of hidden camera could have various consequences — legal, social and otherwise. The law on the issue of hidden camera has not yet evolved and is still in the stage of its infancy. In today’s context, people invariably use digital cameras and other devices. All these are electronic, magnetic, optical and other high-speed systems, which perform logical, arithmetical, and memory functions by manipulation of electronic, magnetic or optical impulses. Thus, all these devices come within the term “computer” as defined in Section 2 of India’s first cyber law, namely, the Information Technology Act, 2000. Further, the photographs and output of digital cameras are indeed data and information in the electronic form within the meaning of Section 2 of the Information Technology Act 2000.

However, the Indian cyber law does not provide for specific provisions impacting the use of digital cameras. The problem with Indian cyber law is that it is a law meant to provide legal recognition for transactions carried out by means of electronic data interchange and other means of electronic communication, commonly referred to as “electronic commerce”, which involve the use of alternatives to paper-based methods of communication and storage of information. Regulating digital cameras is not the stated objective of this land. Consequently, we find that this law does not provide anything in this regard.

From the legal perspective, there are various challenges raised by usage of hidden cameras. The most important challenge relates to the violation of the privacy of the individual(s) who are the targets of the camera. This is so because any hidden camera seeks to do surveillance upon person or persons and distinctly invades the right of privacy of the individual.

In India, unfortunately, we do not yet have a dedicated law on privacy. The Supreme Court has, in various cases, including the famous PUCL telephone tapping case, has held that the fundamental right to life in Article 21 of the Constitution of India does include the right to privacy. However, this right to privacy is only applicable against state action and does not include within its ambit the breach of privacy by private individuals.

Today, the use of hidden camera provides no effective remedy against the same to the affected persons. The IT Act 2000 does not touch the issue of breach of privacy in the electronic medium. The law needs to be amended so as to include therein specific provisions relating to the right of privacy of the individuals in the context of the electronic medium and for providing an effective remedy so that affected parties get substantial justice.

With respect to online pornography, the same is punishable under Section 67 of the IT Act, 2000. The section provides for five years imprisonment and fine for anyone who transmits or publishes or causes to be transmitted or published pornographic material over the internet.

The government needs to come down with a strong hand regarding the use of mobile camera in public places and government offices. Further, the use of such cameras in restricted places needs to be banned. A number of hotels have already banned use of mobile cameras in swimming pools and massage parlours. The important issue is that reasonable restrictions need to be imposed for the larger good of the general public.