Sections 354A-354D IPC vs Sections 75-78 BNS — Sexual Harassment, Voyeurism, Stalking

Quick Answer

Sections 354A through 354D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 — inserted by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 following the Nirbhaya case — have been replaced by Sections 75 through 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, effective 1 July 2024. These four provisions criminalise sexual harassment (354A/75), assault with intent to disrobe (354B/76), voyeurism (354C/77), and stalking (354D/78). The BNS retains all four offences with their core definitions largely intact, but makes two notable changes: Sections 76 (disrobing) and 77 (voyeurism) now use the gender-neutral term "Whoever" instead of "Any man who," extending liability to perpetrators of any gender, while Sections 75 (sexual harassment) and 78 (stalking) remain male-perpetrator-specific. The punishment structures are substantively retained with minor enhancements.

What changed

Full statutory text

Section 354A IPC — Sexual harassment (repealed w.e.f. 1 July 2024)

(1) A man committing any of the following acts — (i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or (ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or (iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or (iv) making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment.

(2) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

(3) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

Section 75 BNS — Sexual harassment

(1) A man committing any of the following acts — (i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or (ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or (iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or (iv) making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment.

(2) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

(3) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

Section 354B IPC — Assault to disrobe (repealed w.e.f. 1 July 2024)

Any man who assaults or uses criminal force to any woman or abets such act with the intention of disrobing or compelling her to be naked, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 76 BNS — Assault to disrobe

Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman or abets such act with the intention of disrobing or compelling her to be naked, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 354C IPC — Voyeurism (repealed w.e.f. 1 July 2024)

Any man who watches, or captures the image of a woman engaging in a private act in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed either by the perpetrator or by any other person at the behest of the perpetrator or disseminates such image shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine, and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 77 BNS — Voyeurism

Whoever watches, or captures the image of a woman engaging in a private act in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed either by the perpetrator or by any other person at the behest of the perpetrator or disseminates such image shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine, and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 354D IPC — Stalking (repealed w.e.f. 1 July 2024)

(1) Any man who — (i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or (ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking.

(2) Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished on a first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 78 BNS — Stalking

(1) Any man who — (i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or (ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking.

(2) Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished on a first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Text in bold highlights the gender-neutrality changes.

Key differences

1. Gender-neutral language in Sections 76 and 77: The most significant legislative change. IPC 354B began "Any man who" — BNS 76 replaces this with "Whoever." Similarly, IPC 354C began "Any man who" — BNS 77 replaces this with "Whoever." This means that women and persons of any gender can now be prosecuted for assault with intent to disrobe and voyeurism. This is a meaningful expansion of criminal liability.

2. Sections 75 and 78 remain gender-specific: Sexual harassment (BNS 75) continues to use "A man committing..." and stalking (BNS 78) continues to use "Any man who." The legislature made a deliberate choice to extend gender neutrality to some but not all of these offences — a selective approach that has drawn both support and criticism.

3. Punishment structures substantially unchanged: Sexual harassment under clauses (i)-(iii) remains punishable with up to three years rigorous imprisonment or fine or both. Sexually coloured remarks remain punishable with up to one year. Disrobing carries three to seven years. Voyeurism carries one to three years on first conviction and three to seven years on subsequent conviction. Stalking carries up to three years on first conviction and up to five years on subsequent conviction.

4. All four offences grouped under Chapter V: Under the IPC, Sections 354A-354D were placed in Chapter XVI (Offences Affecting the Human Body). Under the BNS, Sections 75-78 are placed in Chapter V (Offences Against Woman and Child), creating a dedicated legislative framework. This structural grouping alongside rape (Sections 63-69), acid attack (Section 124), and dowry death (Section 80) signals a comprehensive approach to gender-based violence.

5. Victim remains female for all four offences: Despite the gender-neutral perpetrator language in Sections 76-77, the victim in all four provisions continues to be specified as "a woman." The BNS does not extend voyeurism or disrobing protections to male victims.

6. Exception structure for stalking preserved: Both IPC 354D and BNS 78 contain exceptions for (a) pursuit authorised by the State or required under law, and (b) conduct that was reasonable and justified in the particular circumstances. These exceptions are carried forward without modification.

What this means for practitioners

For prosecution: The gender-neutral language in BNS 76 and 77 means that FIRs and charge sheets for disrobing and voyeurism offences committed on or after 1 July 2024 can now be filed against perpetrators of any gender. Prosecutors should note that while the perpetrator can be anyone, the victim must still be a woman — these are not fully gender-neutral provisions.

For defence counsel: The selective gender-neutrality creates an interpretive asymmetry that may generate litigation. Defence counsel may argue that the legislature's conscious decision to retain male-only perpetrator language in Sections 75 and 78 — while changing it in Sections 76 and 77 — reflects a deliberate legislative intent that should inform the interpretation of all four provisions. Constitutional challenges under Article 14 (equality before law) cannot be ruled out.

For pending cases: Cases filed under IPC 354A-354D for offences committed before 1 July 2024 continue under the old provisions. Since the punishment structures are substantially identical, the transition creates minimal sentencing disparity.

For workplace sexual harassment: Section 75 BNS retains the same definition of sexual harassment that exists in Section 354A IPC. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) continues to operate as the primary workplace-specific framework, with BNS 75 providing the criminal law dimension. Practitioners should continue to advise on both parallel tracks.

Does old case law still apply?

The post-2013 case law on IPC 354A-354D remains directly applicable to BNS 75-78, given the substantive similarity of the provisions.

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241 — The foundational judgment on workplace sexual harassment, laying down the Vishaka Guidelines that were subsequently enacted as the POSH Act, 2013. While the Guidelines themselves are superseded by the POSH Act, the Court's observations on the constitutional right to a safe working environment (Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21) continue to inform the interpretation of sexual harassment under BNS 75.

State of Kerala v. Aji (2022) — The Kerala High Court addressed the evidentiary standards for voyeurism under Section 354C IPC, particularly in the context of digital surveillance. The principles regarding the expectation of privacy and the definition of "private act" carry forward to BNS 77.

Aparna Bhat v. State of M.P. (2021) 12 SCC 363 — The Supreme Court held that courts must not impose inappropriate bail conditions in sexual offence cases (such as requiring the accused to "mediate" with the victim or tie a rakhi). This decision governs judicial conduct in all BNS 75-78 cases.

Cases that may need reconsideration: Decisions interpreting IPC 354B and 354C as exclusively male-perpetrator offences will need to be reassessed in light of the gender-neutral language in BNS 76 and 77. Courts will need to develop new jurisprudence on how these provisions apply when the perpetrator is not male.

Judicial interpretation under BNS 75-78 (post-July 2024)

No post-July 2024 cases directly citing BNS Sections 75, 76, 77, or 78 were found in the Veritect database for either the Supreme Court or Delhi High Court. The available cases continue to adjudicate under IPC 354A-354D because the underlying offences pre-dated 1 July 2024.

Key post-2024 developments on the IPC precursors

Tuhin Kumar Biswas v. State of West Bengal (CrlA/5146/2025, 2 December 2025) — The Supreme Court (Justices Manmohan and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh) discharged the accused from a voyeurism charge under Section 354C IPC, holding that merely clicking photographs during a property dispute does not constitute voyeurism. The Court clarified that Section 354C requires watching or capturing an image of a woman engaging in a "private act" — an essential ingredient absent on the facts. This interpretation of "private act" will directly govern Section 77 BNS.

Mahadeep v. State NCT of Delhi (22 August 2024) — The Delhi High Court (Justice Amit Mahajan) quashed an FIR under Section 354C IPC where parties had reached a settlement, applying BNSS Section 528 (inherent powers). The Court distinguished between heinous offences and those with a civil character, noting voyeurism charges arising from interpersonal disputes may be amenable to quashing upon genuine settlement.

Santosh Kumar v. State (APPLN. 4691/2024, 10 February 2025) — The Delhi High Court (Justice Neena Bansal Krishna) granted regular bail in a case charging BNS Sections 70(1), 74, and 78 alongside the SC/ST Act. This is among the early Delhi HC orders referencing BNS Section 74 (assault to outrage modesty) and Section 78 (stalking) in a bail context, though the substantive interpretation of these sections was not the focus.

Emerging patterns

Based on available post-July 2024 orders, the initial judicial approach suggests:

1. Strict construction of voyeurism: The Supreme Court in Tuhin Kumar Biswas has narrowed Section 354C/77 by insisting on proof that the victim was engaged in a "private act" — a standard that will carry forward to BNS 77.
2. Settlement-based quashing remains available: For non-heinous sexual offences (particularly voyeurism and stalking), courts appear willing to quash proceedings under BNSS Section 528 where genuine settlements are reached.
3. Gender-neutral provisions untested: No case in the database has yet tested the expanded gender-neutral perpetrator language in BNS Sections 76 and 77. The first such prosecution will likely generate significant jurisprudence.

Frequently asked questions

What are the BNS equivalents of IPC 354A, 354B, 354C, and 354D? Section 75 BNS replaces IPC 354A (sexual harassment). Section 76 BNS replaces IPC 354B (assault to disrobe). Section 77 BNS replaces IPC 354C (voyeurism). Section 78 BNS replaces IPC 354D (stalking). All four are in Chapter V (Offences Against Woman and Child).

Can a woman be prosecuted for voyeurism or disrobing under the BNS? Yes, under BNS Sections 76 and 77. These provisions use "Whoever" instead of "Any man who," making them gender-neutral on the perpetrator side. However, the victim must still be a woman. Sexual harassment (Section 75) and stalking (Section 78) remain male-perpetrator offences.

Which section applies to cases before 1 July 2024? IPC 354A-354D apply to all offences committed before 1 July 2024. BNS 75-78 apply to offences committed on or after 1 July 2024. Since punishment structures are substantially identical, the transition is largely seamless for pending cases.

Were these sections created after the Nirbhaya case? Yes. IPC Sections 354A (sexual harassment), 354B (assault to disrobe), 354C (voyeurism), and 354D (stalking) were inserted by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, enacted in response to the Justice Verma Committee recommendations following the December 2012 Nirbhaya gang rape case. The BNS carries these provisions forward in Sections 75-78.