Online Harassment, Cyberstalking, And Identity Theft Prosecutions
Online Harassment, Cyberstalking, and Identity Theft: Overview
With the rise of the internet and social media, crimes against individuals online have become a significant concern. These include:
Online harassment – Sending threatening, abusive, or unwanted messages online.
Cyberstalking – Repeatedly following or monitoring a person online with the intent to intimidate or threaten.
Identity theft / phishing – Illegally obtaining personal information to impersonate or defraud a person.
Legal Framework in India
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 354D – Stalking (including cyberstalking).
Section 499/500 – Defamation (online or offline).
Section 420 – Cheating by misrepresentation, including online fraud.
Section 66C IT Act – Identity theft / cheating by impersonation.
Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act)
Section 66A (Struck down in 2015) – Sending offensive messages.
Section 66E – Violation of privacy (like posting intimate images).
Section 66F – Cyber terrorism.
Section 67 – Publishing obscene material online.
Challenges in Prosecution
Jurisdiction issues (perpetrator may be overseas).
Anonymous accounts make identification difficult.
Evidence preservation: messages, emails, posts need to be securely documented.
Balancing freedom of speech and harassment laws.
Landmark Cases on Online Harassment, Cyberstalking, and Identity Theft
1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) – Section 66A Challenge
Facts:
Section 66A of IT Act criminalized sending offensive messages online.
Over 1,000 arrests were made under this section, often for online posts and comments.
Court Findings:
Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional for being vague and violating freedom of speech (Article 19).
Emphasized that only targeted harassment or threats are punishable.
Significance:
Set a clear distinction between free speech and online harassment.
Courts encouraged more precise laws to prosecute online harassment.
2. State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti (2004) – Cyberstalking / Email Harassment
Facts:
Accused sent obscene emails and harassed women online using fake identities.
Victims filed complaints under IT Act and IPC sections (including 66C and 509).
Court Findings:
Chennai court convicted Suhas Katti for cyberstalking and obscene communication.
Emphasized preservation of digital evidence (emails, chat logs) as critical.
Significance:
Landmark in India’s first convictions for cyber harassment.
Established methodology for collecting online evidence.
3. Shashi Tharoor v. Kerala Police (2019) – Cyber Defamation
Facts:
Politician filed complaint against online trolls spreading false information and harassing him and family.
Court Findings:
High Court upheld prosecution under IPC Sections 499 and 500.
Court highlighted the role of social media platforms in assisting identification of perpetrators.
Significance:
Reinforced that online defamation and harassment are actionable.
Showed that even politically high-profile individuals can seek protection online.
4. Niranjan v. State of Karnataka (2017) – Identity Theft & Fraud
Facts:
Accused obtained personal bank details from victims and carried out online fraud.
Victims filed complaints under IT Act and IPC Section 420.
Court Findings:
Karnataka High Court convicted the accused under Section 66C (identity theft) and Section 420 IPC.
Court emphasized digital forensic evidence such as logs and IP addresses.
Significance:
Landmark for prosecuting identity theft and online financial crimes.
Highlighted coordination between banks, police, and cyber forensic labs.
5. Mohd. Shuaib v. State of Maharashtra (2020) – Cyberstalking & Threats
Facts:
Accused repeatedly stalked and threatened victim via social media and messaging apps.
Court Findings:
Mumbai sessions court convicted accused under IPC 354D (stalking) and 506 (criminal intimidation).
Court emphasized pattern of harassment and repeated messages as evidence of intent.
Significance:
Reinforced that cyberstalking is punishable even if physical contact doesn’t occur.
Established that digital behavior can prove criminal intent.
6. XYZ v. Facebook & Ors (Delhi High Court, 2018) – Social Media Platforms and Liability
Facts:
Victim sought removal of harassing content and identity theft incidents on Facebook.
Court Findings:
Delhi High Court held that social media platforms have a duty to assist in removal of offensive content.
Failure to act could attract liability under IT Act Sections 66A/67 (pre-2015) or 66C for identity theft.
Significance:
Landmark in platform accountability in cyber harassment and identity theft.
Encouraged cooperation between victims, platforms, and law enforcement.
7. Kavita Arora v. State of Delhi (2021) – Cyberstalking & Intimate Image Misuse
Facts:
Accused posted intimate images of victim online without consent (revenge pornography).
Court Findings:
Delhi court convicted accused under IPC 354C (voyeurism), 66E IT Act.
Court emphasized non-consensual sharing as a severe violation of privacy.
Significance:
Reinforced protection for women and minors against online sexual harassment and image-based abuse.
Key Legal Principles from These Cases
Digital Evidence is Crucial – Emails, chat logs, IP addresses, and screenshots are admissible and necessary.
Intent Matters – Cyberstalking, harassment, and identity theft require showing malicious intent or repeated conduct.
Platform Accountability – Social media companies may be directed to remove offensive content and cooperate with authorities.
Intersection of IT Act and IPC – Both are used together for comprehensive prosecution.
Privacy Rights – Non-consensual sharing of images, impersonation, and harassment violate constitutional rights to privacy and dignity.
High-Profile vs Ordinary Cases – Courts treat online harassment of public figures seriously, but also extend protection to ordinary citizens.
RELATED Blog
0 comments