Prosecution Of Cyber Harassment, Identity Theft, And Online Stalking
1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) – Cyber Harassment via Social Media
Court: Supreme Court of India
Background:
Shreya Singhal, a student, filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act), which criminalized offensive online content.
The case emerged when two women were arrested for a Facebook post critical of a political figure after a public shutdown in Mumbai.
Legal Issues:
Whether Section 66A, which criminalized online messages causing “annoyance,” is unconstitutional.
The balance between freedom of expression and protection from online harassment.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, ruling it as vague, overbroad, and a violation of freedom of speech under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution.
However, the Court emphasized that harassment, stalking, and identity theft could still be prosecuted under other provisions like Section 66C (identity theft), Section 66E (violation of privacy), and Section 354D (stalking).
Principle:
While offensive online content may not be broadly criminalized, online harassment, identity theft, and stalking remain prosecutable offenses under the IT Act and IPC, and the judiciary emphasizes the protection of individual dignity and privacy in the digital space.
2. State of Maharashtra v. Kushal (2017) – Cyber Stalking and Impersonation
Court: Bombay High Court
Background:
Kushal, a tech-savvy individual, created fake Facebook profiles of multiple women and began sending harassing and abusive messages to them. He also posed as a woman and befriended men online, engaging them in defamatory activities.
The victims were stalked online and received continuous threats via social media and emails.
Legal Issues:
Whether online stalking and impersonation for harassment fall under Section 66C (identity theft) and Section 354D (stalking) of the IT Act.
Whether criminal intent to harass and misuse online profiles for defamation justifies prosecution under Section 499 (defamation) IPC.
Judgment:
The Bombay High Court convicted Kushal under Sections 66C (identity theft), 66D (cheating by impersonation), and 354D (stalking) of the IT Act.
The Court emphasized that using the internet to cause distress, create fake profiles, or defame someone online constitutes stalking and harassment under Indian law.
Principle:
Cyber stalking and identity theft using fake identities to harass or defame people online can lead to criminal prosecution under identity theft and privacy violation laws.
The creation of fake social media accounts or impersonation is a punishable offense even if it does not result in physical harm.
3. Aditi Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) – Online Identity Theft and Cyberbullying
Court: Lucknow District Court
Background:
Aditi Jain, a college student, became a victim of identity theft when someone used her photos and personal details to create a fake account on an online dating platform.
The fake profile was used to send sexually explicit messages to her friends and relatives, resulting in emotional distress and harassment.
Legal Issues:
Whether identity theft and the use of personal information without consent in online platforms constitutes a violation under Section 66C (identity theft) of the IT Act.
Whether the act of harassing through fake profiles and emotional abuse falls under Section 354D (stalking).
Judgment:
The court convicted the accused under Section 66C (identity theft), Section 66E (violation of privacy), and Section 354D (stalking).
The judge emphasized the severity of online harassment and the irreparable harm caused to the victim's reputation and privacy.
Principle:
Identity theft in cyberspace, especially on social media platforms, can have significant emotional, reputational, and financial consequences.
Cyberbullying through fake online profiles is subject to criminal prosecution, including both privacy violation and stalking laws.
4. State of Delhi v. Dinesh Kumar (2021) – Online Stalking and Abusive Emails
Court: Delhi High Court
Background:
Dinesh Kumar, a former colleague of the complainant, began sending abusive emails and messages to the victim after they had a falling-out.
The victim was bombarded with threatening emails and was continuously harassed on social media platforms by the accused.
Legal Issues:
Whether online harassment and threats via email and social media constitute cyberstalking under Section 354D of the IPC.
Whether persistent harassment through electronic communication amounts to criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC.
Judgment:
Dinesh Kumar was convicted under Section 354D (stalking) and Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC, as well as Section 66A (sending offensive messages) under the IT Act.
The Court highlighted that harassment or stalking by using email, SMS, or social media is punishable, and the victim’s distress and continuous harassment was a key factor in the ruling.
Principle:
Online harassment and stalking are not limited to social media but extend to any form of digital communication, including emails and messaging apps.
Threatening and abusive behavior conducted online can be prosecuted under multiple criminal laws, including stalking and intimidation.
5. Priya Kapoor v. State of Haryana (2018) – Online Harassment and Defamation via Social Media
Court: Haryana High Court
Background:
Priya Kapoor, a woman, found that her intimate photos were shared on a public social media group by an ex-boyfriend with malicious intent to humiliate her.
The posts led to widespread defamation and mental distress. Priya filed a complaint for cyber harassment, defamation, and violation of her privacy.
Legal Issues:
Whether uploading intimate images or videos without consent constitutes cyber harassment and violation of privacy.
Whether sharing someone’s personal images to harm their reputation is a criminal offense under IPC and IT Act.
Judgment:
The accused was charged with Section 66E (violation of privacy), Section 354C (voyeurism), and Section 499 (defamation) of the IPC.
The Court emphasized that online defamation, along with the violation of personal privacy, carries severe legal consequences and is punishable under criminal laws.
Principle:
Non-consensual sharing of intimate images and online defamation are serious criminal offenses under both the IT Act and IPC, with the potential for severe penalties.
Victims of cyber harassment related to personal images or videos have legal recourse under privacy violation and defamation laws.
⚖️ Key Legal Principles from These Cases
| Principle | Statutory Provision | Illustrative Case |
|---|---|---|
| Cyber stalking and harassment | Section 354D IPC | State of Maharashtra v. Kushal (2017) |
| Identity theft and fraud | Section 66C IT Act | Aditi Jain v. State of UP (2019) |
| Privacy violation (sharing intimate images) | Section 66E IT Act | Priya Kapoor v. State of Haryana (2018) |
| Cyberbullying through fake profiles | Section 66C IT Act, Section 354D IPC | Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) |
| Defamation via online platforms | Section 499 IPC, Section 66E IT Act | Priya Kapoor v. State of Haryana (2018) |
Conclusion
Cyber harassment, identity theft, and online stalking are serious criminal offenses punishable under both the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Information Technology Act (IT Act).
Courts increasingly rely on digital evidence—such as social media messages, emails, and phone records—to establish intentional harassment, impersonation, and defamation in cyber-related cases.
Identity theft, particularly through social media profiles, and non-consensual sharing of intimate images, is subject to significant legal consequences under privacy and harassment laws.
Online defamation and threatening behavior are also actively prosecuted to protect individuals' dignity and safety in the digital world.
RELATED Blog
comments