Digital Harassment In Criminal Courts
1. Meaning of Digital Harassment
Digital harassment refers to any form of threatening, insulting, degrading, defamatory, intrusive, or sexually inappropriate behavior conducted through digital means, such as:
Social media (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter/X)
WhatsApp or email
Fake profiles
Online stalking
Publishing private or morphed images
Sending obscene messages
2. Relevant Legal Provisions
Information Technology Act, 2000
Section 66A (struck down) – offensive messages online
Section 66C – identity theft
Section 66D – impersonation and cheating
Section 67 – obscene materials online
Section 67A – sexually explicit content
Section 67B – child sexual content
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 354A – sexual harassment
Section 354D – stalking (including cyberstalking)
Section 499/500 – defamation
Section 503/506 – criminal intimidation
Section 509 – insulting modesty of a woman
MAJOR CASE LAWS (DETAILED)
Below are six leading judgments that shaped the law on digital harassment.
1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) – Landmark on Online Speech and Harassment
Court: Supreme Court of India
Key Issue: Constitutionality of Section 66A IT Act, which penalized “offensive messages” sent online.
Facts:
Several individuals were arrested for harmless or political posts on Facebook and Twitter. The law was repeatedly misused to target people for criticism or even jokes.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional, holding that the expression “offensive,” “annoying,” and “inconvenient” were vague and overbroad, allowing police to arrest people arbitrarily.
Relevance to Digital Harassment:
Although Section 66A was struck down, the judgment clarified:
Online harassment must be prosecuted under clearer, specific sections, such as 67, 354D, 509, or IPC provisions.
Freedom of speech cannot be curtailed except in narrowly defined situations.
2. State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti (2004) – First Conviction for Online Harassment
Court: Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai
Facts:
The accused posted obscene and defamatory messages in an online Yahoo message group under a fake identity, targeting a woman and making it appear that she was soliciting sex online.
Judgment:
Convicted under Section 67 IT Act (publishing obscene material)
Also under IPC 469 (forgery for harming reputation)
Importance:
India’s first-ever conviction for cyber harassment.
Recognized that online reputation damage and obscene content carry criminal liability even if posted anonymously.
3. Basheer v. State of Kerala (2017) – Circulation of Obscene Images
Court: Kerala High Court
Facts:
The accused circulated a woman’s private and morphed images through social media and WhatsApp without her consent.
Legal Issues:
Whether forwarding morphed images is an offence
Which sections apply—IPC or IT Act
Judgment:
The Court held:
Circulating such images amounts to:
Section 66E IT Act (violation of privacy)
Section 67A (sexually explicit content)
Section 354C IPC (voyeurism)
The intent to insult or defame is not necessary; the act itself is punishable.
Importance:
Strengthened protection against sharing private images online—even if morphed.
4. Kalandi Charan Lenka v. State of Odisha (2017) – Cyberstalking Recognized as Serious Crime
Court: Orissa High Court
Facts:
A student was harassed by someone who created fake Facebook profiles, sent obscene messages, and circulated her photos to others.
Judgment:
The High Court recognized:
Cyberstalking is a grave offence under Section 354D IPC
Creation of fake profiles is punishable under Sections 66C and 66D IT Act
Bail should be denied due to the seriousness of the digital harassment.
Importance:
This case defined cyberstalking clearly and emphasized the mental trauma caused despite no physical contact.
5. Sanjay Kumar Kedia v. Intelligence Officer (Narcotics Control Bureau) (2009) – Liability for Online Platforms
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts:
The accused ran websites used for illegal drug transactions. Although not harassment, the Court discussed broader liabilities for online actions, including hosting illegal content or allowing misuse.
Relevance to Harassment:
The Court held that if a person knowingly allows misuse of an online platform, criminal liability can arise.
This principle applies in harassment cases where:
Platforms fail to remove abusive content
Admins of groups encourage harassment
6. XYZ v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) – Harassment Through WhatsApp
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Facts:
A woman was harassed through repeated WhatsApp messages, threats, and unsolicited obscene images.
Judgment:
The Court held:
Repeated digital communication causing fear falls under Section 503, 506 IPC (criminal intimidation)
Sending obscene images constitutes Section 67 IT Act
Persistent unwanted messages amount to stalking under Section 354D IPC
Importance:
Clarified that WhatsApp harassment is equivalent to physical stalking, even without physical presence.
Conclusion
Digital harassment is now a significant area within criminal law. Courts treat online offences as seriously as physical crimes, particularly when they involve:
repeated messages
online impersonation
non-consensual image sharing
threats and intimidation
cyberstalking
Modern jurisprudence shows a strong trend toward victim protection, strict punishment, and expanded definitions of harassment to include online behavior.
RELATED Blog
comments