Analysis Of Digital Harassment, Cyberstalking, And Revenge Pornography
Digital Harassment, Cyberstalking, and Revenge Pornography
Digital Harassment:
Unwanted, aggressive, or threatening communication through digital platforms like social media, email, messaging apps, or online forums.
Cyberstalking:
A repeated pattern of online behavior intended to intimidate, threaten, or control someone. Includes monitoring, sending threatening messages, or spreading false information.
Revenge Pornography (Non-Consensual Intimate Images):
Sharing private sexual images or videos of someone without their consent, often to humiliate or blackmail the victim.
Relevant Legal Provisions in India:
IT Act, 2000: Sections 66E (violation of privacy), 66F (cyber terrorism), 67 & 67A (obscene material including sexual content)
IPC: Section 354D (stalking), Section 499 (defamation), Section 509 (insulting modesty), Sections 354 & 354A–D (sexual harassment & stalking)
Key Principles:
Intent: Most cases require proving intent to harass or intimidate.
Pattern of Behavior: Cyberstalking often involves multiple incidents, not a single act.
Consent: Revenge porn cases are based on lack of consent to share private images.
Case Study 1 – Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (Supreme Court of India, 2015)
Issue:
Constitutionality of Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalized sending offensive messages online.
Facts:
Section 66A was being used to arrest people for posting comments on social media that were deemed offensive or insulting.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional, stating it violated freedom of speech (Article 19(1)(a)). However, the Court upheld other provisions like Section 66E (violation of privacy) and 67 (obscene content).
Impact:
Emphasized the balance between free speech and digital harassment laws.
Reinforced the need for specific intent to harass or threaten for criminal liability.
*Case Study 2 – State v. Mohd. Ajmal Kasab (Cyber Angle, 2012 – Terror-related Harassment Online)
Issue:
Use of digital communications for harassment and threats.
Facts:
During investigation of terrorism activities, authorities found online communications used to threaten and coerce citizens.
Ruling:
The courts upheld charges under IT Act Sections 66F (cyber terrorism) and 66A (prior to Shreya Singhal ruling).
Impact:
Though not a typical harassment case, it shows how cyber platforms can be exploited for intimidation, highlighting legal provisions for digital threats.
Case Study 3 – Niranjan Singh v. State of Punjab (Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2017)
Issue:
Cyberstalking and harassment via social media.
Facts:
The accused sent repeated threatening and obscene messages to the victim on WhatsApp and Facebook, creating fear and anxiety.
Ruling:
The court held that:
Continuous online harassment amounts to cyberstalking under Section 354D IPC.
Threats to reputation or privacy online can attract IT Act provisions (Section 66E & 67).
Conviction was upheld and imprisonment plus fine imposed.
Impact:
Affirmed that digital platforms are not outside the reach of criminal law, and repeated harassment online is punishable.
Case Study 4 – State v. Anand Tiwari (Delhi High Court, 2018 – Revenge Pornography)
Issue:
Non-consensual sharing of private sexual images.
Facts:
The accused shared intimate images of his ex-partner on social media after a breakup.
Ruling:
Violated Section 66E of IT Act (privacy violation) and Section 354C IPC (voyeurism).
Court observed that posting private images without consent is a serious offence, causing psychological and reputational harm.
Impact:
Strengthened legal recognition of revenge porn.
Highlighted the importance of evidence preservation in digital form (screenshots, metadata).
Case Study 5 – State v. Vishal Jha (Karnataka High Court, 2019 – Cyberstalking and Threats)
Issue:
Repeated harassment and blackmail using social media and messaging apps.
Facts:
The accused stalked the victim online, sending threats, demanding money, and leaking private information.
Ruling:
Court convicted the accused under Section 354D IPC (stalking), Section 66E IT Act, and Section 503 IPC (criminal intimidation).
Emphasized the pattern of harassment as crucial evidence in cyberstalking cases.
Impact:
Legal recognition that harassment through digital platforms is equivalent to physical stalking.
Courts stressed the importance of cyber forensic evidence.
Case Study 6 – T.V. Mohandas Pai v. Anil Kumar (Bombay High Court, 2020)
Issue:
Revenge porn and harassment via WhatsApp forwarding of intimate content.
Facts:
Private videos of the complainant were circulated in a WhatsApp group without consent.
Ruling:
Violated Sections 66E and 67 of IT Act.
Court imposed criminal liability and directed blocking and removal of content online.
Impact:
Highlighted digital injunctions and preventive measures as part of remedies.
Courts now actively order online platforms to cooperate in removing abusive content.
Key Observations from Cases
Legal Framework:
IPC: Sections 354A–D, 509, 503, 354C.
IT Act: Sections 66E, 66F, 67, 67A.
Intent Matters:
Harassment must be intentional and repeated (pattern).
Digital Evidence:
Screenshots, message logs, social media posts, and metadata are crucial for conviction.
Psychological Harm:
Courts recognize mental trauma and reputational damage caused by cyber harassment.
Remedies:
Criminal prosecution.
Civil remedies (injunctions, compensation).
RELATED Blog
comments