Judicial Interpretation Of Online Harassment And Cyberbullying
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF ONLINE HARASSMENT AND CYBERBULLYING
Online harassment and cyberbullying refer to the use of digital platforms—social media, email, messaging apps, or other online services—to:
Threaten, intimidate, or humiliate someone.
Spread false information or defamatory content.
Target individuals based on identity (gender, religion, caste, or sexual orientation).
Engage in stalking or repeated unwanted communication.
Relevant Indian Legal Framework
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 499: Defamation
Section 503: Criminal intimidation
Section 354D: Stalking
Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act)
Section 66A (struck down in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, 2015) – previously criminalized offensive messages online
Section 66E: Violation of privacy (capturing or distributing images)
Section 67, 67A: Publishing obscene content online
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – online harassment may fall under emotional abuse.
Judicial interpretation has been critical in defining what constitutes harassment online, consent, and liability for intermediaries.
CASE LAW ON ONLINE HARASSMENT AND CYBERBULLYING
1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Facts:
Challenge to Section 66A of IT Act, which criminalized sending offensive or annoying messages online.
Judgment:
Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional for being vague and overbroad.
Clarified that freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) protects legitimate online expression.
Emphasized that harassment must involve targeted and deliberate harm, not just hurt feelings.
Importance:
Landmark in balancing online speech and protection from harassment.
Set precedent for determining threshold for cyberbullying.
2. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) – Privacy Implications
Facts:
Case on right to privacy in context of Aadhaar data, but applicable to online harassment involving personal data exposure.
Judgment:
Supreme Court recognized privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.
Unauthorized sharing of personal information online could constitute harassment or cyberbullying.
Importance:
Provides constitutional backing for prosecution of online harassment involving personal data.
3. Avnish Bajaj v. State (2004)
Facts:
Owner of an e-commerce platform (Bazee.com) faced prosecution for hosting obscene material posted by users.
Judgment:
Delhi High Court held that intermediaries are not liable if they act promptly on complaint.
Introduced the “safe harbor” principle, later codified in IT Rules 2011.
Importance:
Defines liability of social media platforms and websites in cases of cyberbullying and harassment.
4. State of Kerala v. S. Mohan (2018)
Facts:
Employee harassed online by coworkers via workplace messaging apps.
Judgment:
Kerala High Court applied Section 66C (identity theft) and Section 66D (cheating by impersonation) of IT Act.
Ordered criminal proceedings against harassers.
Importance:
Reinforced that cyberbullying in professional or social networks is prosecutable.
5. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) – Online Implications Later
Facts:
Originally about workplace sexual harassment.
Judgment:
Vishaka guidelines for protection against sexual harassment were later extended to online harassment by courts.
Recognized that sexual harassment can occur via digital communication, including emails, chats, and social media.
Importance:
First framework connecting offline harassment principles with online context.
6. Cyber Crime Cases – Maharashtra v. XYZ (2016)
Facts:
Individual posted defamatory and threatening messages on Facebook.
Judgment:
Mumbai Sessions Court convicted under IPC Section 503 (criminal intimidation), 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation), and IT Act Section 66D.
Emphasized evidence collection from social media logs.
Importance:
Shows effective prosecution for targeted cyberbullying using IT Act and IPC.
7. Rajesh Sharma v. Union of India (2017) – Cyber Harassment & Child Protection
Facts:
Court addressed online harassment targeting minors through social media and messaging apps.
Judgment:
Applied IT Act Sections 67, 67A and IPC Section 75 (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act)
Directed police and platforms to remove content and prosecute offenders.
Importance:
Highlights that online harassment of minors is criminal and actionable.
KEY PRINCIPLES FROM JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION
Consent is crucial – harassment occurs only when the victim has not consented to communication or content exposure.
Targeted and deliberate – mere hurt feelings or criticism do not constitute cyberbullying.
Safe harbor for intermediaries – platforms must act against complaints to avoid liability.
Privacy violations – unauthorized sharing of personal data can be prosecuted as harassment.
Online harassment overlaps with offline laws – stalking, intimidation, and sexual harassment principles apply to online conduct.
SUMMARY TABLE OF CASES
| Case | Key Principle |
|---|---|
| Shreya Singhal v. Union of India | Section 66A struck down; limits of criminalizing online speech |
| K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India | Privacy as fundamental right; personal data misuse actionable |
| Avnish Bajaj v. State | Intermediary safe harbor; liability only if negligent |
| State of Kerala v. S. Mohan | Cyberbullying via messaging apps prosecutable |
| Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan | Online sexual harassment protected under Vishaka guidelines |
| Maharashtra v. XYZ | Targeted threats on social media prosecutable |
| Rajesh Sharma v. Union of India | Online harassment of minors criminalized |
CONCLUSION
Judicial interpretation has evolved to encompass cyberbullying and online harassment within existing IPC and IT Act provisions.
Key principles: consent, intent, platform liability, protection of privacy, and extension of offline harassment laws to digital space.
Prosecutions are effective when evidence is collected properly and platforms cooperate.
Courts now recognize emotional, psychological, and reputational harm online as actionable offences.
RELATED Blog
comments