The answer depends significantly on the context, location, and purpose of the recording, since Indian law doesn't impose a blanket prohibition on recording someone without consent, but specific circumstances make such recording clearly illegal, while others remain in a legally permissible or at least unregulated space.

Recording someone in a private space, or in circumstances where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, particularly capturing them in a state of undress, using a washroom, changing clothes, or engaged in any other "private act," is squarely criminalised under Section 77 BNS (Section 354C IPC), voyeurism, discussed above, regardless of the recorder's stated intention, and this applies even if you're recording in what might technically be your own property (such as a landlord recording a tenant, or a family member recording another in a private setting) if it captures the subject without their knowledge or consent in a situation of genuine privacy.

Recording in public places is generally more legally permissible in India, since there's no comprehensive right to privacy against being filmed in a public space where one is visible to any passerby, and this is why CCTV cameras, news cameras, and casual public photography/videography are generally lawful without needing each individual's specific consent. However, this general permissibility has limits: if the recording is done with a specific intent to harass, stalk, or intimidate the person (which could invoke Section 78 BNS, stalking, if it involves monitoring someone's movements repeatedly), or if the recording, even in public, captures something that would still be considered private or sensitive (for instance, zooming in inappropriately on someone's body in a manner that constitutes sexual harassment under Section 75 BNS), the general public-space permissibility doesn't protect the recorder.

Recording a conversation you're personally part of, meaning recording your own phone call or in-person conversation with someone else without their knowledge, occupies a somewhat different legal space. Unlike some countries with strict "two-party consent" wiretapping laws, Indian law doesn't generally criminalise one party to a conversation recording that conversation for their own personal use or as evidence, and such recordings have been accepted as evidence in Indian courts in various contexts, including matrimonial and other civil disputes, provided the recording's authenticity can be properly established (which, for electronic evidence, requires the Section 63 BSA certificate discussed in earlier responses). That said, if such a recording is subsequently used to harass, blackmail, or defame the other party, or if it's illegally intercepted (meaning you weren't actually a party to the conversation but tapped into it through unauthorized means), separate legal liability under provisions dealing with unauthorized interception, breach of privacy, or specific provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (such as Section 66E) or the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 can arise.

Recording someone specifically to create or distribute content that violates their dignity, whether through morphing images, creating deepfakes, or capturing and circulating content meant to humiliate or harass, brings in a wider set of provisions, including Section 77/78 BNS discussed above, provisions of the IT Act dealing with obscene or sexually explicit content, and in appropriate cases, defamation provisions under Section 356 BNS.

It's also worth understanding that the broader constitutional right to privacy, recognised as a fundamental right under Article 21 following the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), discussed in an earlier response, provides an overarching framework that courts increasingly draw upon when assessing whether a specific instance of recording someone violated their reasonable expectation of privacy, even in situations not squarely covered by a specific criminal provision, meaning this remains a developing and somewhat fact-sensitive area of law beyond the clearest-cut categories discussed above.

If you've been recorded without your consent in a manner you believe violates your privacy or dignity, your specific remedy depends on the exact circumstances — filing an FIR under the relevant provision if it falls within voyeurism, harassment, or IT Act violations, or in less clear-cut cases, consulting a lawyer about whether a civil remedy for invasion of privacy, or in appropriate cases a specific criminal provision applicable to your unique facts, is available.

Conclusion: Video recording someone without permission is illegal in India specifically where it involves capturing a private act (voyeurism under Section 77 BNS), is done with harassing or stalking intent, or is used to create and circulate content violating someone's dignity, while recording in public spaces or recording your own conversations generally remains legally permissible, so the legality genuinely turns on the specific context, location, and purpose of the recording in question. You can reach out to the team at Aapka Legal Advice to have your specific situation assessed, and this list of Top Criminal Lawyers in India | Aapka Legal Advice can help you find suitable representation if you need to act on a specific incident.