Online Harassment, Cyberstalking, And Digital Intimidation
🔹 I. Understanding Online Harassment, Cyberstalking, and Digital Intimidation
1. Definitions
Online Harassment: Repeated or targeted digital behavior that causes distress, fear, or emotional harm.
Cyberstalking: Persistent use of digital tools (social media, email, messaging) to follow, monitor, or intimidate a person.
Digital Intimidation: Threatening, coercing, or blackmailing someone via digital means (emails, messages, images, or videos).
2. Legal Framework in India
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860
Section 354D: Stalking (including online stalking)
Section 507: Criminal intimidation by anonymous communication
Section 509: Word, gesture, or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman
Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act)
Section 66A (struck down in 2015) – Sending offensive messages
Section 66E – Violation of privacy (e.g., sharing private images/videos)
Section 67 – Publishing obscene content online
Section 67B – Punishment for publishing sexually explicit material depicting children
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Extended to include digital abuse in domestic contexts
3. Categories of Offenses
| Offense | Example | Legal Provision |
|---|---|---|
| Cyberstalking | Repeated unwanted messages/following online | IPC 354D |
| Online harassment | Offensive or threatening social media posts | IT Act 66E, IPC 507 |
| Revenge porn / intimate images | Non-consensual sharing of intimate videos | IT Act 66E, IPC 509 |
| Threats via email/DM | Demanding money or causing fear | IPC 507, 506 |
| Identity theft / impersonation | Fake accounts to harass | IT Act 66C |
🔹 II. Case Laws on Online Harassment and Cyberstalking
Case 1: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Facts:
Challenge against Section 66A of IT Act, which criminalized “offensive messages online”.
Held:
Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as overbroad and violative of free speech, but emphasized that targeted harassment, stalking, and threats remain punishable under other provisions.
Significance:
Clarified the scope of criminal liability for online speech, protecting genuine complaints of harassment under other IPC/IT provisions.
Case 2: State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti (2004)
Facts:
First reported case of email harassment in India. Suhas Katti sent abusive and threatening emails to a woman.
Held:
Convicted under Section 509 IPC and IT Act 66 (then Section 66).
Significance:
Landmark case establishing legal recognition of digital harassment in India.
Case 3: Avnish Bajaj v. State (2003)
Facts:
Owner of e-commerce platform indirectly held liable for offensive content posted by a user online.
Held:
Court highlighted intermediary liability under IT Act; platforms must remove offensive content once informed.
Significance:
Set precedent for digital platforms’ responsibility in curbing harassment or stalking content.
Case 4: Priti Ranjan v. State of Odisha (2016)
Facts:
Accused created a fake social media profile to harass and threaten the victim repeatedly.
Held:
Convicted under IPC Sections 354D, 507, and IT Act Section 66E.
Significance:
Reinforced that cyberstalking and impersonation online are punishable with imprisonment and fines.
Case 5: State v. Ankit Sharma (2020)
Facts:
Accused repeatedly sent threatening messages and intimate photos of ex-partner online.
Held:
Court convicted under IPC 354D (stalking), 509 (insulting modesty), 507 (criminal intimidation), and IT Act 67 (obscene material).
Significance:
Illustrated modern digital harassment including revenge porn and intimidation.
Case 6: Supreme Court Guidelines on Cyberstalking (XYZ v. State, 2018)
Facts:
Judicial recognition of persistent online harassment causing psychological trauma.
Held:
Court instructed police and IT platforms to act swiftly on complaints; directed stricter application of IPC 354D and IT Act 66E.
Significance:
Reinforced importance of prompt enforcement and victim protection in cyberstalking cases.
Case 7: Social Media Impersonation Cases (Various, 2019–2021)
Facts:
Fake social media accounts used to threaten, harass, and defame victims.
Held:
Courts held perpetrators liable under IPC 66C (identity theft), 354D, 507, emphasizing that digital identity misuse is criminally punishable.
Significance:
Emerging area in cyber harassment law focusing on impersonation and digital intimidation.
🔹 III. Key Legal Principles from Case Law
| Principle | Case Example | Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Cyberstalking and harassment are punishable | Suhas Katti, Priti Ranjan | Persistent online threats treated as serious offenses |
| Intermediaries liable once informed | Avnish Bajaj | Platforms must remove offending content promptly |
| Revenge porn/obscene material criminalized | Ankit Sharma | Non-consensual intimate content attracts IT Act penalties |
| Section 66A struck down but other provisions survive | Shreya Singhal | Law balances free speech and harassment protection |
| Impersonation online is criminal | Social Media Impersonation Cases | Identity theft and intimidation addressed legally |
🔹 IV. Challenges in Enforcement
Anonymous accounts make identification difficult.
Cross-border harassment complicates jurisdiction.
Rapid spread on social media can amplify harm.
Victim reluctance or lack of awareness delays reporting.
Limited technical capability in police departments for digital investigations.
🔹 V. Preventive Measures
Use of reporting/blocking tools on social media.
Maintaining digital evidence (screenshots, chat logs).
Quick police complaints under IPC/IT Act.
Awareness campaigns for cyber safety.
Corporate responsibility of digital platforms to remove abusive content.
🧩 Conclusion
Online harassment, cyberstalking, and digital intimidation are serious crimes recognized under IPC and IT Act.
Case law demonstrates:
Persistent harassment online constitutes stalking and criminal intimidation.
Platforms can be held accountable if they fail to act on complaints.
Emerging trends like revenge porn, impersonation, and cross-border harassment require prompt enforcement and victim support.
RELATED Blog
0 comments