Cybercrime And Online Harassment
1. Cybercrime – Meaning and Scope
Cybercrime refers to any unlawful act where a computer, digital device, or the internet is used either as:
A tool (to commit the crime),
A target (where systems/data are attacked), or
Both.
Common Forms of Cybercrime
Hacking and unauthorized access
Identity theft
Online fraud and phishing
Cyberstalking and cyberbullying
Online defamation
Publication of obscene or offensive content
Data theft and privacy violations
Cybercrime is mainly governed in India by:
Information Technology Act, 2000
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Indian Constitution (Article 21 – Right to Privacy)
2. Online Harassment – Meaning
Online harassment includes repeated or severe abusive behavior conducted through digital platforms that causes mental distress, fear, or reputational harm.
Forms of Online Harassment
Cyberbullying
Cyberstalking
Trolling
Online threats
Defamation on social media
Non-consensual sharing of images
Hate speech and abusive messages
Online harassment is punishable under:
IT Act, 2000 (Sections 66A*, 66C, 66D, 67)
IPC Sections 354D, 499, 500, 507
(Section 66A was struck down by the Supreme Court)
CASE LAWS (DETAILED EXPLANATION)
Case 1: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Facts:
Section 66A of the IT Act allowed arrest for sending “offensive” messages online.
Many people were arrested for social media posts and comments.
Shreya Singhal challenged this section as unconstitutional.
Issue:
Whether Section 66A violated Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a).
Judgment:
The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A completely.
The term “offensive” was vague and gave police unlimited power.
Mere annoyance or criticism online cannot be a crime.
Importance:
Protected social media users from arbitrary arrest.
A landmark judgment for online free speech.
Clarified the difference between criticism and harassment.
Case 2: State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti (2004)
Facts:
The accused posted obscene and defamatory messages about a woman on a Yahoo group.
The victim faced social humiliation and harassment.
This was one of the first cyber harassment cases in India.
Issue:
Whether online defamatory posts amount to criminal harassment.
Judgment:
The accused was convicted under:
Section 67 of IT Act (publishing obscene content)
IPC Sections 469 and 509
Court recognized mental harassment through digital means.
Importance:
First conviction under the IT Act, 2000.
Established that online abuse is as serious as offline abuse.
Recognized women’s dignity in cyberspace.
Case 3: Ritu Kohli Cyberstalking Case (2001)
Facts:
Ritu Kohli’s identity was misused in chat rooms.
Her personal details were shared, leading to obscene calls.
She suffered mental trauma.
Issue:
Whether impersonation and online stalking are punishable.
Judgment:
The accused was charged under IPC Section 509 (insulting modesty).
Since the IT Act was new, IPC provisions were applied.
Importance:
India’s first reported cyberstalking case.
Highlighted the need for cyber laws.
Showed that impersonation causes severe psychological harm.
Case 4: K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
Facts:
The case primarily concerned Aadhaar.
However, the court examined digital data and privacy.
Issue:
Is the right to privacy a fundamental right in the digital age?
Judgment:
Supreme Court declared Right to Privacy a Fundamental Right under Article 21.
Applied to both physical and digital spaces.
Importance:
Strong protection against data misuse and cyber surveillance.
Laid the foundation for privacy protection against cybercrime.
Important for cases involving online harassment and data leaks.
Case 5: SMC Pneumatics (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Jogesh Kwatra (2001)
Facts:
An employee sent defamatory emails about the company to clients.
The company’s reputation was damaged.
Issue:
Can online defamation be restrained by law?
Judgment:
Delhi High Court granted an injunction against sending defamatory emails.
Recognized email-based harassment and defamation.
Importance:
First Indian case recognizing online defamation.
Confirmed that cyber defamation is actionable.
Protected corporate reputation in cyberspace.
Case 6: Avnish Bajaj v. State (Bazee.com Case)
Facts:
Obscene material was sold through an online platform.
The CEO of the platform was arrested.
Issue:
Is an intermediary liable for user-generated content?
Judgment:
The court held that intermediaries have responsibility.
However, liability depends on knowledge and control.
Importance:
Defined intermediary liability.
Influenced online platform regulation.
Important for content moderation and harassment control.
3. Conclusion
Cybercrime and online harassment are serious threats in the digital age. Courts have:
Recognized mental trauma caused by online abuse
Balanced free speech and protection from harassment
Expanded privacy rights in cyberspace
Case laws show that:
Online actions have real legal consequences
Harassment does not need physical contact
Digital dignity is part of fundamental rights
RELATED Blog
comments