1. Introduction
The year 2017 witnessed an appalling incident where a YouTube video attracted countless controversies, showing a man kissing unaware women on the streets of Delhi. This act of the YouTuber landed him in legal trouble when the Delhi Police registered an FIR, despite no complaints being filed against him. Later, he was also detained by the Cyber Crime Cell, but all this came to an end when the girls in the video clarified that they had participated willingly and were friends with the guy in the video. But does this justify whatever he did? Does it make the act less alarming? Today, with almost everyone having access to social media platforms, it has become quite easy for anyone to post content on their social media accounts to gain popularity. On the one side, where people dream of becoming popular, it is also a cause of nightmares for many due to the huge number of people being involved in live streaming and public shaming. Numerous online trends have led to people getting exposed to accidental fame without their consent or even without their knowledge in many cases.
However, is it legal to film people in public without consent and upload it for entertainment or monetization? As of now, there doesn’t exist any “Prank Law” that could govern such acts. This doesn’t indicate that one can escape charges after being involved in similar activities. There are various sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 and the Information Technology Act 2000 that can be applied, and under these laws, someone’s breach of privacy is considered a criminal offence. The blog sheds light on the legality of public filming and making prank contents and uploading them on social media without consent. Further, it explores the prominent case laws and judicial interpretations to explicate the legal and ethical implications of such acts.
2. The Rise of Public Filming and Prank Content
YouTube is a for-profit company that earns mainly through ads. It is pertinent that the more time people spend on YouTube, the more ads they see, which contributes to making more money for the company. Hence, to earn more, they would want their customers to spend more time watching videos on YouTube[1]. This validates the point that the company’s primary goal is to keep users engaged in the videos and gain profit, for which it rewards the content that gets more views and has longer watch time. Users are likely to stay on YouTube watching videos if the content seems interesting to them. In such a scenario, prank videos and street videos are more likely to attract the viewers’ attention than the other content. This is the most significant reason behind the rise in such contents.
YouTube is flooded with prank videos of numerous kinds. Be it a fake proposal, hidden cameras recording private conversations, forced interviews, fake ghosts' prank, fake pregnancy, emotional manipulation and many more. Such contents in moderation are not much of a concern, but the moment these creators start pushing the boundaries to expand popularity, revenue and reach, they tend to ignore the ethical implications of their actions. YouTube rewarding popular contents results in these creators crossing the ethical line - from manipulative to risky contents- just to go viral! [2]
3. Key Legal Provisions and Doctrine Involved
Is it legal to make videos or shoot prank videos in public or not? This question has become very important in today’s digital age. The answer to this is complex– it depends on the balance between Constitutional rights, Bharatiya Nyaya sanhita, and Information Technology Act.
3.1. Right to Privacy– Protection of Article 21[3]
The Right to Privacy in India got a historic turn in the 2017 case of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India[4]. A 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court clarified that privacy is a fundamental right which is an integral part of Articles 14, 19 and 21. The Court directly linked privacy with dignity, autonomy and liberty. This right is also relevant in cases of recording in public places. Although absolute privacy cannot be expected in public space, it does not mean that privacy has been completely abandoned. If someone makes a video of someone without consent and uses it commercially, it can be a violation of privacy. The Puttaswamy judgment indirectly says that taking footage of someone without permission and monetizing it is a violation of dignity and privacy– even if it is a public place. Therefore, even in cases of prank videos or public filming, if there is no consent, the victim can seek a constitutional remedy.
3.2. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023[5]
The new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which replaces the old Indian Penal Code (IPC), has several important sections that can be applied to public filming and prank videos, especially when such acts cause harm, distress, or violate someone’s privacy or dignity. Below are some of the relevant sections explained.
A. Section 78 – Stalking: This was earlier IPC Section 354D. If someone repeatedly monitors a girl’s electronic communication or activities without her consent, or contacts her when she has refused, it is stalking. If a woman is repeatedly filmed or harassed in a prank video, this can be applicable.
B. Section79 – Behaviour or gesture insulting the modesty of a woman: This section replaces Section 509 of the old IPC. It punishes any act that insults the modesty of a woman, by word, sound, gesture or object, or intrudes upon her privacy. This section applies to prank videos that involve sexually suggestive behaviour, indecent gestures, public spectacle, or recording of women without their consent. The inclusion of “intrusion into privacy” shows that the law already recognises the dignity and personal space of women.
C. Section 270 – Public Nuisance: which was earlier IPC Section 268, defines public nuisance– that is, acts that cause common injury, danger or annoyance to the public. Prank videos or reels that create disturbance in public places like metro, road or market can come under this section. Like Delhi Metro took action on disruptive reels. Now content creation can also be considered a nuisance if it disturbs public order. This shows that the real-life impact of online activities is being legally regulated.
D. Section 296 – Obscene Acts in Public (BNS): Section 294 of the IPC. It makes it punishable to do obscene acts or use vulgar language in public — especially if it annoys other people. If prank videos contain nudity, vulgar jokes, or sexually suggestive content — it can come under Section 296. The meaning of “obscenity” and “annoyance” is subjective, so there is a chance of them being misused at times — especially in a diverse society like India.
3.3. Information Technology act 2000[6]
A. Section 66 E – Taking or Sharing Private Images Without Consent: Under this section, it is a crime to take, publish, or send photos or videos of a person’s “private area” (such as naked or undergarment-covered genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or a woman’s breasts) without their permission. It was created mainly to prevent revenge porn or voyeuristic pranks. But there is one big drawback in this– it does not cover prank videos where someone’s face, reaction, or non-intimate body part is recorded without permission, whether the intention is harassment or to make money. This does not provide legal protection against broader violations of privacy in the digital content space.
B. Section 67 – Obscene or Sexually Explicit Content: This section punishes publishing or transmitting any obscene or sexually explicit content in electronic form. It is broader than Section 66E as it is not limited to just "private areas". This may also apply if a prank video seems sexually suggestive or obscene (like Crazy Sumit's kissing prank). Like BNS section 296 here too the meaning of "obscene" is subjective- this is why it is difficult for content creators to draw a clear line when humour and offensive content overlap.
C. IT Rules 2021[7]– Intermediary Responsibility (Hinglish, Short Version): Under the IT Rules 2021, "significant social media intermediaries" (SSMIs) like YouTube and Instagram must remove illegal content—such as copyright violation or content that harms public order—when a court or government order comes. If they do not comply, they are subject to "safe harbour" protection under Section 79, which does not make them responsible for the user's content. But this system is reactive—meaning action happens only when damage has already been done. This is why harmful prank videos go viral and emotional or reputational damage is already done. Now the debate is going on that Section 79 should be changed and the platforms should be forced to act proactively, so that accountability increases.
4. Landmark Judgments
l K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)[8] - The Puttaswamy case declared privacy to be a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19, and 21. The Supreme Court said that privacy is an essential part of dignity, autonomy, and liberty. This judgment was not directly on public filming, but its broad interpretation says that disclosure of a person’s image or personal information without consent, especially when used commercially, can violate his/her dignity and privacy—even in a public place. Therefore, consent is necessary for creating prank videos or public content, otherwise a case of violation of constitutional right can be made.
l Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal (2014)[9] - This judgment replaced the old “Hicklin test” of obscenity with a “contemporary community standards test”. Now obscenity is determined by looking at how an average person would view content according to current norms. The Court said that a nude or semi-nude photo would be considered obscene only if it aroused sexual desire. This test applies to pranks that are vulgar or lewd. But the exact meaning of “community standards” is not clear, so the judgment can be quite subjective and confusing in the case of prank videos. Self-regulation becomes difficult for creators in such cases.
5. Challenges Faced and Need for Reform
According to DataReportal’s report, there were 806 million individuals using the internet in India at the start of 2025.[10] This huge number itself is a proof that more than half of the Indian population is using Internet today. This makes it clear that these many people are exposed to the contents available on the internet. Moving further, are you aware of any specific law that regulates public content creation or filming strangers for digital content? Us neither, as there doesn’t exist any such law. It is a high time when government should take a step forward and come up with a specific set of rules and regulations to manage prank videos and public filming without consent of the people who are being shot.
Additionally, elucidating upon the laws that need to be there to regulate such content creation, the primary concern that may arise among the people is the conflict between Freedom of Speech guaranteed under the Constitution[11] of India and the Right to Privacy. As each citizen of the country has the freedom to express freely, these content creators, while shooting prank videos and public filming on the streets, have invoked their freedom in a way that has led to the violation of right to privacy of other individuals. The motive behind stating this point is that the lawmakers should make sure that the regulations must create a balance between these two rights without sabotaging any of them.
6. Conclusion
These days, the trend of public filming and prank videos on platforms like YouTube has increased a lot, which shows an important gap in our legal system. Many times, people's personal rights are violated due to going viral. Laws like Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita 2023 and Information Technology Act 2000 provide protection to some extent, but these laws are too reactive and are not specifically designed to address the harms of digital content. The Puttaswamy judgment recognized privacy as a fundamental right, which provides a constitutional base against filming without consent - be it in a public place or private. But subjective interpretation of terms like "obscenity" and the weakness of intermediary liability rules make it a big problem. Therefore, there is a need for a special "Prank Law" that strikes a balance between freedom of speech and privacy and makes content creators accountable while protecting the general public from public exposure without their consent.
References
[1] The Ethics of YouTube: Should You Watch Pranksters and Mukbang?, Santa Clara University, available at: https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/technology-ethics/resources/the-ethics-of-youtube-should-you-watch-pranksters-and-mukbang/ (last visited on June 28, 2025)
[2] The Importance of Ethical Content Creation, RootNote, available at: https://rootnote.co/the-importance-of-ethical-content-creation/ (last visited on June 28, 2025)
[3] The Constitution of India, art. 21
[4] Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India, AIR 2018 SC (SUPP) 1841
[5] The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (No. 45 of 2023)
[6] The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Act 21 of 2000)
[7] The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021
[8] Supra note 4
[9] Aveek Sarkar & Anr vs State Of West Bengal And Anr, AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 1495
[10] DataReportal, ”Digital 2025: India” (February, 2025)
[11] The Constitution of India