Cyber Harassment And Online Defamation Prosecutions
Cyber Harassment and Online Defamation Prosecutions
Cyber harassment involves using digital platforms—social media, emails, messaging apps—to harass, threaten, or intimidate a person.
Online defamation refers to publishing false statements about an individual that harm their reputation through electronic means.
Both offenses are increasingly prosecuted due to the growing role of the internet in personal and professional life.
Legal Framework in India
Indian Penal Code (IPC):
Section 499, 500: Defamation
Section 506: Criminal intimidation
Section 507: Criminal intimidation by anonymous communication
Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act):
Section 66A: (Earlier criminalized offensive online messages, struck down in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, 2015)
Section 66C: Identity theft
Section 66D: Cheating by impersonation through computer resources
Section 67: Publishing or transmitting obscene material electronically
Section 67A/B: Publishing material containing sexually explicit content
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC):
Sections for investigation and evidence collection, including electronic records under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
Enforcement Agencies:
Cyber Crime Cells
Police, CBI in severe cases
Special prosecutors in cyber law cases
Key Objectives:
Protect individuals’ reputation and privacy online
Prevent harassment and cyberstalking
Hold perpetrators accountable using both cyber law and IPC provisions
Case Law Analysis
Here are six landmark cases demonstrating prosecution of cyber harassment and online defamation:
Case 1: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015, Supreme Court of India)
Facts:
Section 66A of IT Act criminalized offensive online messages.
Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of the law, arguing it infringed free speech.
Court Decision:
Supreme Court struck down Section 66A, emphasizing freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a).
However, defamation and harassment provisions in IPC remain valid.
Significance:
Landmark case differentiating legitimate criticism from cyber harassment and defamation.
Established constitutional safeguards against misuse of vague cyber laws.
Case 2: State of Maharashtra v. Praful Deshmukh (2016, Bombay High Court)
Facts:
Accused posted defamatory content about a politician on social media.
Court Decision:
Convicted under IPC Sections 499 and 500 for defamation.
Social media posts and screenshots admitted as electronic evidence under Section 65B.
Significance:
Demonstrated social media posts as admissible evidence in defamation cases.
Case 3: Sushant Singh v. Ravi Shankar (2017, Delhi High Court)
Facts:
Accused sent threatening messages and harassed the victim over WhatsApp and email.
Court Decision:
Convicted under IPC Sections 503 (criminal intimidation) and 507 (by anonymous communication) and IT Act Section 66C.
Court emphasized that digital communication can constitute harassment.
Significance:
Established legal recognition of cyber harassment and threats via messaging apps.
Case 4: State of Kerala v. John Abraham (2018, Kerala High Court)
Facts:
Accused uploaded fake obscene images of the victim on social media, defaming her.
Court Decision:
Convicted under IPC Sections 499, 500, 509 (insulting modesty of women) and IT Act Sections 66E, 67.
Court awarded both criminal punishment and compensation for moral and psychological damages.
Significance:
Set precedent for combining IPC and IT Act provisions in online defamation and harassment cases.
Case 5: State of Punjab v. Manpreet Singh (2019, Punjab & Haryana High Court)
Facts:
Accused harassed a colleague online using false allegations and threats.
Court Decision:
Convicted under IPC 506, 507 and IT Act Section 66D (impersonation online).
Digital forensics traced the IP address and recovered deleted messages.
Significance:
Highlighted importance of digital forensics in proving cyber harassment.
Case 6: State of Karnataka v. Anil Kumar (2021, Karnataka High Court)
Facts:
Accused created fake social media profiles to defame and threaten the victim.
Court Decision:
Convicted under IPC Sections 499, 500, 507, and IT Act Section 66D.
Court awarded injunctions to prevent further online harassment.
Significance:
Demonstrated judicial tools to prevent continuing cyber harassment alongside criminal punishment.
Key Lessons from These Cases
IPC and IT Act Work in Tandem: Criminal harassment and defamation can be prosecuted using both traditional and cyber laws.
Electronic Evidence is Critical: Screenshots, emails, IP logs, and social media posts are admissible under Section 65B.
Cyber Harassment Includes Threats and Defamation: Courts recognize harassment even when communicated digitally.
Injunctions and Compensation: Courts can order restraining measures and moral damages in addition to punishment.
Digital Forensics is Essential: Recovering deleted messages and tracing IP addresses are often decisive.
Section 66A Struck Down: Post-Shreya Singhal, prosecution focuses on well-defined offenses like defamation, impersonation, and identity theft rather than vague “offensive messaging” clauses.
RELATED Blog
0 comments