Instagram Compliment In 'Gen-Z Lingo' Doesn't Amount To Voyeurism Or Outraging Woman's Modesty: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a 21-year-old student over an Instagram direct message complimenting his classmate's appearance, holding that a solitary private message in "Gen-Z lingo" does not constitute the offences of voyeurism, stalking or insulting the modesty of a woman under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that criminal statutes carrying serious consequences cannot be invoked merely because an expression is "inelegant, immature or distasteful", adding that every awkward expression of admiration cannot be forced into the statutory framework of criminal offences.

"Every impropriety is not criminality; every indiscretion cannot be elevated into an offence; and every awkward expression of admiration cannot be forced into the statutory mould of voyeurism, stalking or insult the modesty of a woman," the Court observed.

The petitioner and the complainant, aged 21 and 20 respectively, were classmates and friends. The prosecution stemmed from a single Instagram direct message sent by the petitioner stating, "U kinda look so hot in light coloured clothes."

According to the Court, the message was a private communication between two individuals and reflected the colloquial language commonly used by young people in the digital age.

The complaint was allegedly shown to the complainant's father, an IPS officer, following which an FIR was registered under Sections 77 (voyeurism), 78 (stalking) and 79 (insulting the modesty of a woman) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Sections 66E and 67D of the Information Technology Act.

The petitioner, a state-level cricketer, approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR, contending that the investigation itself was an abuse of process.

Examining the facts, the Court emphasised that the entire prosecution rested on a single private message, which was neither publicly circulated nor intended to humiliate the complainant.

"There is no series of messages, no repetition, no threat, no pursuit, no demand and no further communication of an objectionable nature. The prosecution rests on this solitary sentence and nothing beyond it" the Court noted.

It noted that the message merely sought to describe how respondent No.2 appeared in light-coloured clothes.

“The expression employed is undoubtedly colloquial and belongs to the idiom of contemporary youth. The young increasingly communicate in abbreviations, informal phrases and expressions peculiar to the digital age, often without pausing to contemplate that a casual word, typed in a fleeting moment, may one day drag them into the unforgiving web of criminal proceedings” the bench remarked.

Justice Nagaprasanna held that none of the statutory ingredients of the alleged offences were satisfied. There was no allegation that the petitioner had watched, captured or disseminated any private act so as to attract voyeurism.

Equally, there was no allegation of repeated attempts to contact the complainant despite her disinterest, a necessary ingredient for stalking. Nor did the message, viewed in the context of the parties' relationship, disclose any deliberate intention to insult the modesty of a woman.

The Court cautioned against employing criminal law to punish every instance of poor judgment in interpersonal communication.

"The expression used, may be inappropriate, indiscreet and best avoided. Youthful vocabulary, however, cannot by itself become the gateway to criminal prosecution, unless the essential ingredients of the alleged offence are demonstrably present. The criminal law cannot be employed as a bludgeon to punish every social indiscretion or linguistic impropriety," it observed.

The Court further observed that permitting the investigation to continue would imperil the career of a young student and sportsperson while allowing the criminal process itself to become the punishment.

Holding that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and result in a miscarriage of justice, the Court quashed the FIR and directed the investigating officer to return all electronic devices and other articles seized from the petitioner.

Case Title: Thomas Jadan v. State of Karnataka & Anr.