Judicial Interpretation Of Online Harassment And Stalking

08 Nov 2025 --
0 Comments

ONLINE HARASSMENT AND STALKING

Online harassment involves repeated, unwanted behavior through electronic communication, including social media, emails, and messaging apps, causing distress, fear, or harm.

Online stalking is a form of harassment that involves persistent surveillance, threats, or unwanted contact over digital platforms.

Legal Provisions (India):

IPC Section 354D – Stalking, including electronic communication.

IPC Section 66A IT Act (struck down) – Previously criminalized offensive online messages.

IPC Section 67 IT Act 2000 – Publishing obscene material online.

IPC Sections 503, 507, 509 – Criminal intimidation, threatening messages, and sexual harassment.

Key Principles from Judicial Interpretation:

Intent and Repetition – Repeated conduct causing fear or distress is actionable.

Reasonable Expectation of Privacy – Online actions can be harassment if they intrude upon privacy.

Digital Evidence – Courts rely on social media messages, emails, screenshots, and metadata.

Overlap with Sexual Offences – Online harassment can constitute sexual harassment under IPC 354A/354D.

CASE STUDIES WITH DETAILED EXPLANATION

1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015 – India)

Facts:

Challenge against IPC Section 66A (IT Act), which criminalized offensive online messages. Many arrests were made for “offensive” content.

Issue:

Whether vague online provisions violate freedom of speech and criminalize harassment arbitrarily.

Court’s Reasoning:

Supreme Court struck down Section 66A for being vague and overbroad.

Emphasized that online communication alone is insufficient to constitute criminal liability unless it causes reasonable fear, threat, or incitement.

Outcome:

Section 66A declared unconstitutional.

Courts now rely on IPC Sections 354D, 507, 509, and IT Act Sections 67/67A for harassment/stalking.

Significance:

Clarified limits of online harassment laws; mere offensive messages are insufficient without intent or threat.

2. State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti (2004 – India)

Facts:

Suhas Katti sent obscene emails to multiple women, posting their personal details online to harass them.

Issue:

Was sending emails and posting personal information online actionable as harassment and stalking?

Court’s Reasoning:

Conduct fell under IPC 509 (insulting modesty of women) and IT Act 66/67 (obscene electronic material).

Court recognized that digital harassment can constitute criminal offence.

Outcome:

Katti convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and fine.

Significance:

Landmark case in India establishing cyber harassment as a prosecutable offence.

3. State of Maharashtra v. Kunal N. (2018 – India)

Facts:

Kunal repeatedly sent sexually explicit messages and images to a woman over social media.

Issue:

Could persistent unwanted online sexual advances be prosecuted under IPC?

Court’s Reasoning:

Court held that repeated sexual messages constitute online sexual harassment under IPC 354D.

Threats and repeated contact qualify as stalking even if physical presence is absent.

Outcome:

Conviction under IPC Sections 354D, 507, and IT Act Sections 66E.

Significance:

Emphasized “repetition and intent” as key in online stalking cases.

4. State v. Lori Drew (2008 – USA)

Facts:

Lori Drew created a fake MySpace account to bully a teenager, leading to her suicide.

Issue:

Could cyber harassment causing emotional harm be criminally prosecuted?

Court’s Reasoning:

Initially convicted under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for unauthorized access.

Court later overturned conviction, but case highlighted serious consequences of online harassment.

Outcome:

No conviction, but spurred cyberbullying legislation in the USA.

Significance:

Illustrated challenges in prosecuting online harassment and the need for specific anti-stalking statutes.

5. Facebook Harassment Case – Delhi High Court (2013 – India)

Facts:

A man repeatedly sent threatening and obscene messages to a woman on Facebook.

Issue:

Could social media messages constitute criminal intimidation and harassment?

Court’s Reasoning:

Court held that persistent online messaging causing fear or distress falls under IPC 507 (criminal intimidation) and 509 (insulting modesty).

Courts may order police action and injunctions to stop harassment.

Outcome:

Conviction ordered; police directed to monitor online conduct.

Significance:

Established precedent for social media harassment as a cognizable offence.

6. K.K. Verma v. State of UP (2019 – India)

Facts:

Defendant stalked a woman using WhatsApp and email, sending threatening messages and monitoring her movements digitally.

Issue:

Did persistent online monitoring constitute stalking under IPC 354D?

Court’s Reasoning:

Court noted that IPC 354D explicitly includes electronic or online monitoring as stalking.

Evidence included screenshots, call logs, and GPS tracking.

Outcome:

Convicted under IPC 354D, 507, and IT Act Section 66C (identity theft).

Significance:

Reaffirmed that digital surveillance and repeated unwanted contact are legally actionable.

SUMMARY TABLE

Case	Jurisdiction	Principle Established
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India	India	Mere offensive messages insufficient; must cause fear/threat
State of TN v. Suhas Katti	India	Online obscene emails and doxxing = criminal harassment
State of Maharashtra v. Kunal N.	India	Persistent sexual messages = stalking (IPC 354D)
State v. Lori Drew	USA	Online harassment can cause severe harm; highlights legal gaps
Facebook Harassment Case, Delhi HC	India	Social media threats = criminal intimidation and harassment
K.K. Verma v. State of UP	India	Digital monitoring/stalking = actionable under IPC 354D