Cyber Bullying And Harassment Prosecutions
1. Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015) – Section 66A Strike Down
Background:
A college student in Maharashtra was arrested for posting online comments critical of political leaders. This triggered a constitutional challenge against Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000, which penalized sending “offensive messages” online.
Crime Alleged:
Posting “offensive” or “annoying” content online.
Section 66A was vague and often used to suppress free speech.
Legal Action:
The petitioner argued that Section 66A violated Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of Speech.
Supreme Court reviewed previous arrests and harassment cases under 66A.
Case Law Outcome:
Supreme Court struck down Section 66A in 2015, declaring it unconstitutional for being vague and overbroad.
Emphasized that legitimate expression cannot be criminalized under cyber laws.
Significance:
Landmark judgment protecting freedom of speech online.
Set a precedent for evaluating cyber harassment provisions against constitutional rights.
2. Cyber Harassment Case: Subramanian Swamy vs. Twitter (2012–2019)
Background:
Dr. Subramanian Swamy filed complaints against users on Twitter for posting derogatory tweets about him. He alleged cyber harassment and defamation under the IT Act and IPC.
Crime Alleged:
Cyber harassment, defamation (Section 66D and Section 500 IPC).
Publishing obscene content online (Section 67 IT Act).
Legal Action:
Complaint filed with Cyber Crime Cells and Delhi Police.
Investigation focused on identifying the anonymous users behind the accounts.
Case Law Outcome:
Courts ruled that social media platforms must comply with legal requests to disclose user information.
Highlighted difficulties in identifying offenders in cyber harassment cases.
Significance:
Demonstrated the legal avenues available for victims of online harassment.
Reinforced accountability of social media intermediaries under Section 79 IT Act.
3. Troll Attack on a Woman Journalist – Nisha Susan vs. Unknown (2018)
Background:
A woman journalist in Kerala faced online threats and trolling after writing a controversial article. Anonymous users spread defamatory posts on social media.
Crime Alleged:
Online harassment, cyberstalking (Section 66E – violation of privacy).
Criminal intimidation (Section 503 IPC).
Legal Action:
Police registered an FIR and traced IP addresses.
Charges under IPC Sections 354D (Stalking), 506 (Criminal Intimidation), and IT Act Sections 66E & 67.
Case Law Outcome:
Accused were arrested and charged.
Court held that online trolling, even anonymously, can amount to criminal harassment if it threatens or defames the victim.
Significance:
Clarified that cyber harassment is punishable even without physical contact.
Courts empowered cyber cells to trace anonymous offenders.
4. Cyberstalking Case: Actress Shraddha Das (2017)
Background:
An actress was repeatedly harassed on social media and messaging platforms. The offender sent threatening messages and misused personal photos online.
Crime Alleged:
Cyberstalking (Section 66A/66D IT Act previously; now Sections 354D IPC, 67 IT Act).
Misuse of images (Section 66E – violation of privacy).
Legal Action:
Complaint filed with local cyber crime unit.
Cyber forensic experts traced IP and messaging accounts to the accused.
Case Law Outcome:
Court convicted the offender for harassment and misuse of images.
Imposed imprisonment and fine under IPC Sections 354D, 503, 506 and IT Act Sections 66E & 67.
Significance:
Reinforced legal remedies for victims of online stalking.
Highlighted need for stricter enforcement against misuse of personal images.
5. Facebook Harassment Case – Priyanka Paul vs. Unknown (2019)
Background:
A student faced harassment on Facebook by an unknown person who posted obscene and defamatory messages publicly.
Crime Alleged:
Cyber harassment, defamation (IPC Sections 499, 500).
Obscene content online (IT Act Section 67).
Legal Action:
Cyber Crime Cell initiated tracing of IP addresses and social media accounts.
Legal notices issued to Facebook under Section 79 IT Act to provide user data.
Case Law Outcome:
Perpetrator identified and arrested.
Court noted that social media users can’t claim anonymity to escape prosecution.
Significance:
Reinforced Section 66E & 67 IT Act for protecting victims from online harassment.
Provided guidelines for law enforcement to tackle harassment on global platforms.
6. WhatsApp Threats & Cyber Extortion – Case of Ramesh vs. Unknown (2020)
Background:
Victim received threatening messages demanding money over WhatsApp. Threats included release of private information online if demands weren’t met.
Crime Alleged:
Cyber extortion (Section 66D, 66E, 72 IT Act).
Criminal intimidation (IPC Sections 503 & 506).
Legal Action:
Complaint filed with Cyber Crime Unit.
WhatsApp records requested for tracing sender.
Case Law Outcome:
Court convicted offender for extortion and harassment.
Sentence included imprisonment and fine.
Significance:
Showed that cyber harassment can escalate into financial and psychological abuse.
Highlighted effectiveness of cyber forensic tools in identifying offenders.
Key Legal Provisions Used in Cyber Harassment Cases
| Section | Law | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| 66E IT Act | Information Technology Act | Punishment for violation of privacy, e.g., capturing or sharing private images |
| 66D IT Act | IT Act | Punishment for cheating by impersonation or false messages |
| 67 IT Act | IT Act | Publishing obscene content online |
| 354D IPC | Indian Penal Code | Stalking, including cyberstalking |
| 503 IPC | IPC | Criminal intimidation |
| 506 IPC | IPC | Punishment for criminal threats |
| 499/500 IPC | IPC | Defamation |
Key Takeaways
Cyber harassment includes trolling, stalking, threats, defamation, and extortion online.
Anonymity is not a defense; cyber forensic tools allow authorities to trace offenders.
Legal framework combines IT Act sections with IPC provisions.
Courts increasingly recognize psychological harm from online harassment as equivalent to physical harassment.
Social media platforms have intermediary liability and must cooperate with law enforcement.
RELATED Blog
comments