Criminal Liability For Online Harassment Of Minors
Criminal Liability For Online Harassment Of Minors
🧾 I. Introduction
Online harassment of minors refers to any form of bullying, stalking, threatening, or sexually exploitative behavior directed at a person below 18 years of age through the internet, social media, or other electronic communication.
It includes:
Cyberbullying (repeated online abuse or humiliation)
Cyberstalking (constant unwanted online attention or following)
Online sexual harassment (sending explicit messages, grooming, etc.)
Distribution of child sexual abuse material (CSAM)
⚖️ II. Relevant Legal Provisions in India
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860
Section 354A: Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment.
Section 354D: Stalking (including online).
Section 509: Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.
Section 499 & 500: Defamation through online medium.
Section 506: Criminal intimidation.
Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act)
Section 66E: Violation of privacy.
Section 67: Publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form.
Section 67A: Publishing or transmitting sexually explicit material.
Section 67B: Material depicting children in sexually explicit acts — specifically protects minors.
Section 72: Breach of confidentiality and privacy.
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012
Criminalizes sexual harassment, assault, or exploitation of minors (below 18 years).
Online grooming or transmitting sexual content to a child can also fall under Sections 11 and 12 (sexual harassment of a child).
🧑⚖️ III. Important Case Laws
1. State of West Bengal v. Animesh Boxi (2018)
Court: District Court, West Bengal (First Cyber Conviction under Section 67A IT Act)
Facts:
A 22-year-old student created a fake Facebook profile of his female classmate, morphed her images, and uploaded obscene content. The victim suffered severe emotional trauma.
Judgment:
The accused was convicted under Sections 66E, 67, and 67A of the IT Act, and Section 509 IPC.
The court imposed rigorous imprisonment of five years and a fine.
Significance:
This was one of the first Indian cases where an offender was convicted for online sexual harassment and morphing. It established the liability of individuals for circulating obscene or sexually explicit content of minors.
2. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts:
Although primarily about freedom of speech and the striking down of Section 66A of the IT Act, this case laid the foundation for distinguishing between free expression and online harassment.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A (which criminalized “offensive messages”) for being vague and unconstitutional. However, the Court emphasized that online harassment, cyberstalking, or threats can still be prosecuted under Sections 67, 67A, 67B IT Act, and relevant IPC provisions.
Significance:
Clarified that genuine online harassment, particularly involving minors, is still criminally punishable even after Section 66A’s removal.
3. Prajwala v. Union of India (2015–2018)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts:
The NGO Prajwala filed a writ petition highlighting the online circulation of rape videos and child pornography.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court directed the Union Government to formulate a mechanism for preventing upload and circulation of child sexual abuse material (CSAM).
Following this case, the government and major social media platforms implemented reporting mechanisms and content takedown policies.
Significance:
This case directly linked online sexual exploitation of minors to criminal liability and compelled the State to strengthen enforcement of Section 67B IT Act and POCSO Act provisions.
4. R v. Azim (2013) EWCA Crim 1074 (United Kingdom)
Court: Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), UK
Facts:
The accused, a university student, repeatedly sent abusive and threatening messages to a teenage girl on Facebook and Twitter, causing her serious distress.
Judgment:
Convicted under the Malicious Communications Act, 1988 and Protection from Harassment Act, 1997. The Court held that online harassment can be prosecuted similarly to offline harassment and that the age of the victim (being a minor) aggravates the offense.
Significance:
This case became a leading precedent for prosecuting cyberbullying and online harassment of minors in common law countries, influencing Indian courts’ interpretations.
5. United States v. Lori Drew (2009)
Court: U.S. District Court (Missouri)
Facts:
Lori Drew created a fake MySpace profile to harass 13-year-old Megan Meier, who eventually committed suicide after receiving humiliating messages.
Judgment:
While the conviction under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act was overturned (due to vagueness), the case raised critical discussions about cyberbullying laws and criminal liability for online harassment of minors.
Significance:
This case led to the creation of specific cyberbullying statutes in various U.S. states, emphasizing that harassment causing psychological harm to minors should have serious criminal consequences.
🧩 IV. Criminal Liability Explained
Mens rea (intention):
Sending obscene, threatening, or defamatory content knowingly to a minor shows criminal intent.
Actus reus (act):
Posting, sharing, or transmitting abusive or sexual content through any electronic means.
Defenses:
Mistaken identity (hacked accounts), lack of intent, or absence of knowledge may be raised — though limited when minors are involved.
Jurisdiction:
Even if the offender is abroad, Indian law can apply under Section 75 of the IT Act (extraterritorial jurisdiction).
🛡️ V. Preventive and Enforcement Measures
Cyber Crime Cells in every state.
NCPCR & POCSO e-Box for reporting child-related cyber offenses.
Awareness campaigns in schools.
Mandatory reporting by intermediaries under Section 67C IT Act.
🏁 Conclusion
Criminal liability for online harassment of minors is well established under Indian and international law. The courts treat such offenses with severity, recognizing the psychological harm and long-term trauma caused to young victims.
The combination of IPC, IT Act, and POCSO Act provisions ensures that perpetrators — even if acting anonymously — can be traced and prosecuted.
RELATED Blog
0 comments