The judgment was based on a petition filed by a man accused of voyeurism and intimidation. File
| Photo Credit: Reuters
The Supreme Court of India has cautioned the State against launching criminal prosecution against citizens on a whim, without a reasonable prospect of conviction.
It said half-baked prosecutions and filing of charge sheets was a violation of citizens’ right to fair process, and moreover, adds to the burden of an already weighed-down judicial system.
“State should not prosecute citizens without a reasonable prospect of conviction, as it compromises the right to a fair process,” a Bench of Justices N.K. Singh and Manmohan cautioned.
More than 50% pending cases before Justice Juvenile Board; JJBs not fully staffed
The police, at the stage of filing of charge sheet, and the criminal court, at the stage of framing of charges, must act as initial filters ensuring that only cases with a strong suspicion should proceed to the formal trial stage to maintain the efficiency and integrity of the judicial system.
The judgment was based on a petition filed by a man accused of voyeurism and intimidation.
He, along with his brother, was having criminal charges on a complaint filed by a woman, who accused them of taking photographs and filming her on their mobile camera.
The incident dates back to 2020 when she, her friends and some workmen tried to enter the brothers’ property. She was alleged to be their tenant. The brothers had restrained her, not letting her in. She accused them of violating her privacy. The Supreme Court discharged the brothers of all the charges, including voyeurism.
The court noted that ‘voyeurism’ was defined as “an act of a man watching or capturing the image of a woman engaging in a ‘private act’ in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed”.
‘Private act’ is defined in law as an act including “an act of watching carried out in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy”.
“There is no allegation in the FIR and charge sheet that the complainant was watched or captured by the appellant-accused while she was engaging in a ‘private act’,” Justice Manmohan, who authored the judgment, observed.
The Supreme Court concluded the woman was actually a “prospective tenant” and had no right to be in the property without the brothers’ consent. The verdict found no ground for the charge of criminal intimidation to stay.
The Supreme Court decried the police action to lodge an FIR, knowing that the case did not have even a “reasonable prospect of conviction”.
“The tendency of filing charge sheets in matters where no strong suspicion is made out clogs the judicial system. It forces Judges, court staff, and prosecutors to spend time on trials that are likely to result in an acquittal. This diverts limited judicial resources from handling stronger, more serious cases, contributing to massive case backlogs,” Justice Manmohan observed.
Published – December 04, 2025 11:58 am IST
