The lawyer for the photographer argued that there was no evidence indicating Mansukhani's involvement in uploading the pictures on objectionable websites. (Representational image)

High Court halts case against photographer for dancer's photos on sleazy websites

The petitioner claimed to have uploaded the pictures on legitimate websites, but somehow the images found their way to objectionable websites, leading to allegations of outraging modesty and defamation against the photographer.

by · India Today

The Bombay High Court has granted ad-interim relief and stayed the criminal proceedings against professional photographer Pashminu Mansukhani. He was charged for uploading pictures of a Bharatnatyam dancer on the internet, which were subsequently shared on objectionable websites by unknown persons.

The petitioner, Mansukhani, hired to photograph a part-time Bharatnatyam dancer from South Mumbai on September 4, 2019, claimed to have uploaded the pictures on legitimate websites like digitalstudio.in, pinterest.com, and pixabay.com for general information and educational purposes. However, the images found their way to objectionable websites, leading to allegations of outraging modesty and defamation against Mansukhani, and a case was registered at DB Marg police station.

Advocate Harekrishna Mishra, representing the photographer, argued that there was no evidence indicating Mansukhani's involvement in uploading the pictures on objectionable websites. He emphasised that the complainant herself had uploaded her photographs on pinterest.com, and there was no Non-Disclosure Agreement preventing the photographer from uploading pictures on genuine websites.

On the other hand, Advocate Sachin Agawane, appearing for the dancer, claimed that the act of uploading photographs on objectionable websites without the complainant's permission caused mental trauma. He argued that the complainant suffered due to the petitioner's actions.

Granting the stay, the bench of Justices PD Naik and NR Borkar highlighted that the question was whether Section 354(c) (Voyeurism) and other invoked offences were applicable to the petitioner. The court noted that the plea raised arguable questions.

Published By:
ramesh sharma
Published On:
Dec 7, 2023