Social Media Impersonation
✅ What is Social Media Impersonation?
Social media impersonation involves creating a fake profile on platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter (X), LinkedIn, etc., using someone else's name, photo, or other identifying details, with the intent to:
Deceive others
Harass or defame the real person
Commit fraud or extort money
Damage reputation
Engage in stalking or trolling
🔍 Common Forms:
Creating fake accounts using someone’s name and photo
Sending friend requests/messages to others pretending to be the victim
Posting inappropriate content to defame or mislead
Scamming users by asking for money through fake accounts
Impersonating celebrities or public officials for fraud
⚖️ Legal Provisions in India
Information Technology Act, 2000
Section 66C – Identity theft
Section 66D – Cheating by personation using computer resources
Section 67 – Obscenity
Section 69A – Power to block online content/accounts
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860
Section 419 – Cheating by personation
Section 500 – Defamation
Section 468 – Forgery for the purpose of cheating
Section 509 – Word, gesture, or act intended to insult modesty of a woman
👩💻 How to Report Social Media Impersonation:
Report directly on the platform (Facebook, Instagram, etc.)
File a complaint through the National Cybercrime Reporting Portal: https://cybercrime.gov.in
Lodge an FIR at the nearest police station or cybercrime cell
🧑⚖️ DETAILED CASE LAWS ON SOCIAL MEDIA IMPERSONATION
🔹 Case 1: Rituparna Das v. Unknown (Fake Facebook Profile Case, 2015)
Court: Calcutta High Court
Facts:
A fake Facebook profile was created using Rituparna’s name and photos, posting obscene content. She faced severe mental harassment and social stigma.
Legal Provisions:
Sections 66C, 66D IT Act; Sections 500, 509 IPC
Judgment:
The court ordered an immediate investigation and removal of the profile. Facebook was directed to cooperate with police and provide IP logs.
Significance:
Reaffirmed that impersonation on social media is a serious cybercrime and can be prosecuted under identity theft and defamation laws.
🔹 Case 2: State of Tamil Nadu v. M. Suresh (2017)
Court: Cybercrime Court, Chennai
Facts:
The accused created a fake Instagram profile of a woman who had rejected his romantic advances. He posted morphed pictures and obscene messages.
Charges:
Sections 66C, 67 IT Act; Section 354D IPC (cyberstalking)
Outcome:
Accused was convicted under cyber laws and sentenced to imprisonment.
Significance:
One of the early convictions where morphed images and impersonation were punished severely.
🔹 Case 3: XYZ v. Union of India (2021)
Court: Delhi High Court
Facts:
A high-profile professional found a LinkedIn profile created in her name soliciting fake business deals.
Judgment:
The court directed LinkedIn to suspend the fake account and also emphasized the need for quicker redressal by platforms under IT Rules, 2021.
Significance:
Demonstrated the use of civil remedies alongside criminal prosecution and highlighted intermediary liability.
🔹 Case 4: S. Priya v. State of Karnataka (2019)
Court: Bangalore District Cybercrime Court
Facts:
A fake Facebook profile was created using Priya’s identity to run scam lotteries by asking for bank details and money from her contacts.
Legal Provisions:
Sections 66C, 66D IT Act; Section 420 IPC
Outcome:
The impersonator was traced and arrested using IP logs from Facebook.
Significance:
Showed how impersonation is used for online fraud, and how platforms must provide prompt data for investigation.
🔹 Case 5: Anamika Sharma v. Unknown (2020)
Court: Lucknow Cyber Police
Facts:
Anamika’s fake Instagram profile was created, displaying her personal photos with obscene captions, leading to harassment.
Legal Provisions:
Sections 66E (violation of privacy), 67 (obscenity) of IT Act, Section 509 IPC
Action Taken:
Police registered FIR within 24 hours under cyber laws. Instagram suspended the account.
Significance:
The case demonstrated swift action, especially in cases involving dignity and modesty of women online.
🔹 Case 6: Rohit Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022)
Facts:
A fake Twitter account was created in the name of a local politician, posting hate speech and misinformation.
Legal Provisions:
Section 66C, 66D IT Act; Section 505 IPC (public mischief); Section 419 IPC
Judgment:
The court directed Twitter to block the account and cooperate in identifying the offender. The impersonator was arrested.
Significance:
Social media impersonation of public figures can lead to public disorder and is taken seriously.
🔹 Case 7: Sakshi Jain v. Instagram & Others (2023)
Court: Delhi High Court
Facts:
A woman was impersonated on Instagram using her real photos to send sexually explicit DMs to others.
Relief Sought:
Immediate take-down of the fake profile, restraining order, and direction to police for investigation.
Judgment:
Instagram was directed to remove the account and share data under IT Rules, 2021.
Significance:
Affirmed that social media companies must act within 24-72 hours of being notified of impersonation, especially when it involves harassment.
📌 LEGAL ANALYSIS AND KEY TAKEAWAYS
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Nature of Crime | Impersonation on social media can lead to fraud, harassment, or defamation |
| Applicable Laws | IT Act (Sections 66C, 66D, 67, etc.) + IPC (419, 500, 509) |
| Victim Protection | Fast FIR registration, identity protection, platform cooperation |
| Platform Liability | Under IT Rules, 2021, platforms must remove unlawful content quickly |
| Evidence Required | Screenshots, profile links, messages, witness statements |
| Reliefs Available | Account suspension, criminal prosecution, injunction, compensation |
🧩 FINAL NOTES
Social media impersonation is not just a personal offense—it often leads to broader crimes like fraud, extortion, cyberstalking, and mental harassment. Courts in India have increasingly recognized this and taken a victim-centric approach, especially where women and children are targeted.
RELATED Blog
0 comments