Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Monday came down heavily on a social media content creator accused of secretly filming women passengers on Namma Metro trains in the city, questioning his character and refusing to quash criminal proceedings against him.
Court's Strong Rebuke
"What kind of man are you? You won't leave women to be safe anywhere?" the court asked while delivering the sharp rebuke. Justice M Nagaprasanna, presiding over the case, expressed strong disapproval of the accused's actions.
Details of the Case
The accused, identified as BK Diganth, an accountant, was arrested by Banashankari police in May last year for allegedly recording videos of women without their consent and sharing them on Instagram and Telegram under the handle ‘Metro Chicks'. The Instagram handle had close to 6,000 followers, while there were around 1,000 Telegram subscribers, many of whom had made inappropriate comments on the physical attributes of the women discreetly photographed on trains.
Legal Challenge
Diganth had moved the high court challenging the proceedings pending before the II additional chief metropolitan magistrate court in Bengaluru for offences under Sections 78(2) (stalking), 238(C) (providing false information) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. He argued that no offence was made out, claiming the content was similar to visuals captured by CCTV cameras in public spaces.
Judicial Disapproval
However, his plea met with strong judicial disapproval. "What is this ‘Metro Chicks'?" asked Justice M Nagaprasanna. Rejecting the comparison with CCTV surveillance, he said: "You take pictures of women from behind and post them online? What nonsense is this?" The court emphasised that such conduct, carried out without consent and amplified on social media, could not be equated with legitimate surveillance, raising serious concerns about privacy invasion and harassment.
Technical Objections Overruled
Diganth's counsel attempted to challenge the case on technical grounds, arguing that the investigating officer was also the complainant. But the court brushed aside the contention. "Technicality cannot override such acts of yours. Time has come to stop hiding behind technicalities in matters like this," Justice Nagaprasanna said, dismissing the petition at the threshold and allowing criminal proceedings to continue.
