Cyber Harassment Offences
π What is Cyber Harassment?
Cyber harassment refers to the use of electronic communication (internet, social media, email, messaging apps, etc.) to threaten, harass, stalk, intimidate, or embarrass someone. It includes:
Cyberstalking
Online threats
Defamation
Non-consensual sharing of images
Trolling and abuse
Doxxing (publishing personal information online)
Impersonation
Key Legal Elements:
Intent to harass, alarm, or distress
Use of electronic means
Repetition (in some jurisdictions)
Actual harm or potential risk of harm
βοΈ Key Statutory Provisions (India-centric, with global relevance)
Section 354D IPC: Cyberstalking
Section 509 IPC: Words/gestures intended to insult a woman's modesty
Section 66E IT Act: Violation of privacy
Section 67 & 67A IT Act: Publishing obscene content
Section 72 IT Act: Breach of confidentiality
Other countries: UKβs Malicious Communications Act, US Federal Cyberstalking Laws, etc.
π Landmark / Notable Case Laws on Cyber Harassment
1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) β Supreme Court of India
Facts:
Two girls were arrested under Section 66A of the IT Act for posting comments on Facebook criticizing a political shutdown. This sparked a nationwide debate on free speech and online harassment laws.
Issue:
Was Section 66A unconstitutional due to its vagueness and chilling effect on free speech?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional, holding that it violated Article 19(1)(a) β freedom of speech. However, the judgment clarified that online harassment can still be prosecuted under other laws like IPC Sections 354D, 509, etc.
Significance:
While it protected free speech, it also streamlined how cyber offences should be prosecuted, distinguishing between criticism and harassment.
2. Kalandi Charan Lenka v. State of Odisha (2017) β Orissa High Court
Facts:
A college student was cyberstalked and subjected to defamatory and obscene messages through fake social media accounts. The accused was a known acquaintance.
Legal Provisions Applied:
Sections 354D IPC (stalking), 507 IPC (criminal intimidation), and 66E and 67 IT Act.
Judgment:
The court upheld the FIR and clarified that cyberstalking, even via fake identities, constitutes a punishable offence.
Significance:
One of the early Indian cases that recognized online stalking and impersonation as serious harassment, reinforcing protections under the IT Act and IPC.
3. United States v. Lori Drew (2009) β US District Court, California
Facts:
Lori Drew created a fake MySpace account posing as a teenage boy to cyberbully a 13-year-old girl, who later died by suicide. The case was tried under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).
Judgment:
The jury convicted Drew, but the judge later overturned the conviction, stating that violating website terms of service could not be equated to criminal conduct.
Significance:
Raised global awareness about cyberbullying and prompted legal reforms and discussions in the US about criminalizing online harassment more specifically.
4. R v. Nimrod Sejjal (2016) β UK Crown Court
Facts:
The accused harassed multiple women online, sending sexually explicit messages, and creating fake profiles to defame them.
Charges:
Under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
Judgment:
Sejjal was convicted and sentenced to custodial punishment. The court emphasized the psychological harm caused by online stalking.
Significance:
Set precedent in the UK for sentencing online harassment on par with physical stalking, reflecting how digital abuse can cause severe mental trauma.
5. Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) v. Facebook (2019)
Facts:
A Delhi college student reported a private Facebook group called βBois Locker Roomβ, where male students shared photos of girls and posted lewd comments.
Issue:
Jurisdiction and platform responsibility in cyber harassment and privacy breaches.
Outcome:
DCW summoned Facebook, Delhi Police filed charges, and investigation was initiated under Section 66E, 67 IT Act, and IPC Sections 354, 509.
Significance:
Highlighted the role of social media platforms in enabling or preventing cyber harassment, and triggered wider public discourse on online safety, especially for women.
6. Ritika Sharma v. State of UP (2020) β Allahabad High Court
Facts:
The petitioner filed a complaint against her ex-boyfriend for sharing intimate photos and sending abusive messages through fake Instagram accounts.
Legal Issues:
Violation of privacy, cyberstalking, criminal intimidation.
Judgment:
The court directed the police to file FIR under Sections 66E, 67A IT Act and IPC 354D, stating that non-consensual sharing of private content is a grave offence.
Significance:
Recognized "revenge porn" as a serious cybercrime, reinforcing victim rights in digital spaces.
7. XYZ v. State of Kerala (2021) β Kerala High Court
Facts:
A woman was continuously sent abusive emails and explicit content by an anonymous sender. She filed a complaint, but no action was taken for months.
Issue:
Failure of police to act on cyber harassment complaints.
Judgment:
The High Court pulled up the police and ordered expedited investigation, directing that cyber cells must act swiftly in harassment cases.
Significance:
Emphasized state responsibility in protecting cyber harassment victims and the importance of cyber policing infrastructure.
βοΈ Summary Table
| Case Name | Jurisdiction | Key Offence | Legal Principle Established |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shreya Singhal v. UOI (2015) | India | Free speech vs. online abuse | Section 66A struck down; online abuse can still be punished under IPC |
| Kalandi Lenka v. Odisha (2017) | India | Cyberstalking, fake profiles | Cyberstalking is punishable under IPC & IT Act |
| US v. Lori Drew (2009) | USA | Cyberbullying | Highlighted legal grey areas; led to reform |
| R v. Sejjal (2016) | UK | Online sexual harassment | Digital abuse = psychological harm; jail term upheld |
| DCW v. Facebook (2019) | India | Group harassment, obscene content | Platforms must aid in cybercrime investigation |
| Ritika Sharma v. UP (2020) | India | Revenge porn | Non-consensual image sharing is criminal offence |
| XYZ v. Kerala (2021) | India | Police inaction in cyberstalking | State must ensure timely action in cyber cases |
π§ Legal Insights
Anonymity does not protect the perpetrator; courts permit tracing IP addresses and social media data.
Women are disproportionately targeted, leading to special provisions under IPC and IT Act.
Global jurisprudence is evolving to treat cyber harassment as equivalent in severity to physical stalking.
Social media companies can be held accountable for non-compliance in cybercrime investigations.
Reforms are ongoing in many countries to better define and penalize cyber harassment offences.
β Conclusion
Cyber harassment is a rapidly growing area of concern in criminal law. Courts across jurisdictions are increasingly recognizing digital abuse as serious, punishable misconduct. Legal frameworks are evolving to ensure victim protection, robust digital investigation mechanisms, and accountability for tech platforms.
RELATED Blog
0 comments