Cyberstalking Of Women: Adequacy Of Bns
Cyberstalking of Women: Adequacy of BNS (Bail, Non-Bailable, and Sentencing) in the Legal Framework
Cyberstalking is a growing concern, particularly with the advent of social media platforms and digital communication tools. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) and various cyber laws are being invoked to address this issue. While traditional laws have been in place for physical stalking and harassment, cyberstalking, especially of women, poses new challenges that require the law to adapt to digital mediums. In this context, the adequacy of Bail, Non-Bailable Offenses, and Sentencing (BNS) frameworks is crucial.
Cyberstalking under Indian Law
Cyberstalking involves the use of the internet, social media, or other forms of electronic communication to repeatedly harass or intimidate another person. In India, cyberstalking is primarily governed by the following provisions:
Indian Penal Code (IPC):
Section 354D (Stalking): This section criminalizes stalking, including cyberstalking, which involves any form of persistent watching, following, or contacting a woman, with an intent to annoy, harm, or intrude upon her privacy.
Punishment: Imprisonment for up to 3 years, and/or a fine.
Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act):
Section 66A (though later struck down by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)): This section had made sending offensive or menacing messages via computer or mobile devices punishable by up to 3 years in prison and a fine.
Section 66E: Punishes the violation of privacy, which includes sharing or publishing private images of someone without their consent.
The Protection of Women from Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act, 2013 (Prevention of Sexual Harassment): This act offers a framework for protecting women from cyber harassment in the workplace, which can also involve cyberstalking.
BNS (Bail, Non-Bailable, and Sentencing) and Cyberstalking
When discussing BNS in the context of cyberstalking of women, there are important legal considerations for Bail (the temporary release of the accused), whether the offense is Non-Bailable, and the Sentencing framework.
Bail: While cyberstalking often involves non-violent actions, it can have devastating psychological consequences for the victim. The courts tend to be cautious while granting bail in cases of cyberstalking when there is a history of harassment or when the perpetrator poses a continuing threat.
Non-Bailable Offenses: Cyberstalking could fall under non-bailable offenses if the harassment involves serious or repeated threats, coercion, or causes significant distress to the victim. Courts may deny bail in such cases to protect the victim from further harm.
Sentencing: Courts impose varying sentences depending on the nature of the harassment, the severity of the impact on the victim, and the repetition of the offense. Sentencing can range from a few years of imprisonment to monetary fines or both.
Case Laws on Cyberstalking of Women
1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Facts: Although this case primarily dealt with Section 66A of the IT Act, it is important because it involved cyberstalking through offensive and harmful social media posts. The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Section 66A of the IT Act, arguing it was too broad and violated the fundamental right to freedom of speech.
Issue: Whether Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalized offensive online messages, was constitutional.
Holding: The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A, ruling that it was unconstitutionally vague and violated the right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. However, the judgment left a gap in addressing cyberstalking, as cyberstalking was often charged under Section 66A.
Significance: The case highlighted the need for a clearer legislative framework to address online harassment, including cyberstalking. It also emphasized the role of privacy protection and online safety for women.
2. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Kumar (2020)
Facts: Rajesh Kumar was accused of cyberstalking and sending threatening messages to a woman on social media platforms. The victim had reported receiving repeated abusive messages, including threats to her safety and her family.
Issue: Whether the accused's actions of repeatedly sending threatening and abusive messages through digital platforms amounted to cyberstalking under Section 354D IPC.
Holding: The court held that the accused’s conduct clearly constituted cyberstalking under Section 354D of the IPC. The court emphasized that cyberstalking is not limited to physical threats but also involves emotional and psychological harm caused by the continuous harassment.
Significance: This case illustrated the psychological toll that cyberstalking has on women and emphasized that cyberstalking is not just about physical threats but also includes emotional distress caused by continuous online harassment.
3. Bhumika v. State of Maharashtra (2018)
Facts: Bhumika, a college student, was being stalked online by an ex-boyfriend who used social media to post personal details, send threatening messages, and engage in an online harassment campaign. The victim approached the authorities, leading to the arrest of the accused.
Issue: Whether the accused’s actions could be classified as cyberstalking under Indian law, specifically Section 354D IPC.
Holding: The court held that the continuous nature of the harassment and the fact that it caused severe distress to the victim warranted a non-bailable arrest. The accused was charged under Section 354D for stalking and also under the IT Act for misuse of social media.
Significance: The court's decision reinforced that cyberstalking laws need to account for emotional and psychological harm, not just physical harm. The case also underscored the role of social media platforms in enabling such behavior and the importance of legal accountability for online actions.
4. Shilpi Garg v. State of Delhi (2017)
Facts: Shilpi Garg, a tech professional, faced repeated cyberstalking from a colleague who sent offensive emails and messages and posted defamatory content about her on social media platforms. The accused used online platforms to threaten and harass her with personal information.
Issue: Whether the repeated online harassment, along with the sharing of private content, constitutes cyberstalking and whether such actions should be treated as non-bailable offenses under Section 354D IPC.
Holding: The court found the accused guilty under Section 354D and Section 66E of the IT Act. It denied bail to the accused, noting the serious psychological impact on the victim and the repeated nature of the harassment. The court considered this to be an aggravated form of cyberstalking, warranting non-bailable charges.
Significance: This case emphasized that digital harassment could be as harmful as physical stalking and should be treated with equal severity in legal terms. It also highlighted the importance of privacy protection laws in the digital age.
5. Neha v. State of Rajasthan (2016)
Facts: Neha was repeatedly harassed by her ex-boyfriend, who created fake social media profiles and sent threatening messages. The accused also spread defamatory material about her online, causing significant distress to her personal and professional life.
Issue: Whether such behavior qualifies as cyberstalking, and whether the court should grant bail to an accused involved in online harassment.
Holding: The court ruled that the accused’s actions clearly fit the definition of cyberstalking and imposed a sentence of 3 years imprisonment under Section 354D IPC. The accused was denied bail due to the severity of the harassment and the threat posed to the victim's safety.
Significance: The case showed that the admissibility of online evidence (such as social media posts and messages) could play a crucial role in cyberstalking cases. It also emphasized the need for stronger sentencing to deter digital harassment.
Key Takeaways from the Case Law
| Principle | Case Law |
|---|---|
| Cyberstalking involves both psychological harm and repeated harassment. | State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Kumar (2020) |
| Online harassment can cause emotional distress, leading to non-bailable offenses. | Bhumika v. State of Maharashtra (2018) |
RELATED Blog
0 comments