Bengaluru Accountant to Face Trial Over Secret Recording of Women on Namma Metro; Karnataka High Court Refuses to Quash Case
Bengaluru accountant BK Diganth will face trial after the Karnataka High Court refused to quash charges over secretly filming women on Namma Metro and sharing content on Telegram and Instagram under “Metro Chicks.” The court strongly condemned the act as a serious privacy violation and upheld charges under criminal and IT laws.
The accused, identified as BK Diganth, allegedly recorded women without their consent while travelling on Namma Metro trains and uploaded the videos on social media platforms Telegram and Instagram under the handle “Metro Chicks.” According to reports, his Telegram channel had over 1,000 members, while his Instagram account had approximately 6,000 followers, creating a combined audience of around 7,000 users engaged in viewing and discussing the content.
Diganth was arrested by Banashankari Police in May last year following allegations that he systematically filmed women commuters without their knowledge and distributed the material online. The case was subsequently brought before the Karnataka High Court, where he sought to have the charges dismissed.
Justice M Nagaprasanna rejected the plea, firmly refusing to terminate the proceedings. The judge delivered a strong oral rebuke from the bench, questioning the conduct of the accused. “What kind of man are you? You won’t leave women to be safe anywhere?” the court observed. The judge further remarked, “You take pictures of women from behind and post them online? What nonsense is this?” The court emphasized that such actions constituted a serious violation of privacy and could not be dismissed as mere content creation.
The High Court ruled that the matter must proceed to trial and refused to quash the case. Diganth will now stand trial before the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Bengaluru.
He faces charges under Section 78(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for stalking, Section 238(C) for providing false information, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act relating to the online circulation of obscene material.
The case has drawn attention to the growing concerns around digital voyeurism and the misuse of social media platforms for non-consensual content distribution, reinforcing judicial scrutiny over privacy violations in public transport systems.

Comment List