Stalking, Harassment, And Coercive Control
1. Stalking
Definition: Stalking involves repeated and unwanted attention, harassment, or contact that causes fear or distress. It can be physical, electronic, or psychological. In India, stalking is punishable under Section 354D of the IPC.
Case 1: State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan (2004)
Facts: A man persistently followed and harassed a woman after rejection of his advances. He also sent threatening messages.
Legal Issue: Whether repeated following and threatening messages constitute criminal stalking under Section 354D IPC.
Judgment: The court held that repeated unwanted attention causing fear constitutes stalking. The accused was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment.
Case 2: R. v. Brown (UK, 1997)
Facts: The defendant repeatedly harassed his ex-girlfriend via letters and phone calls.
Legal Issue: Applicability of anti-stalking laws.
Judgment: Established that repeated, unwanted communications causing fear or distress meet the legal definition of stalking. The defendant was convicted under UK anti-stalking laws.
2. Harassment
Definition: Harassment is conduct that intimidates, offends, or humiliates a person, often repeatedly. In India, harassment can fall under Sections 354 (Assault), 354A (Sexual Harassment), 509 (Word/gesture intending insult), and labor laws for workplace harassment.
Case 3: State of Karnataka v. Basavaraj (2012)
Facts: The accused repeatedly sent vulgar messages to a woman and loitered near her residence.
Legal Issue: Whether electronic harassment can be actionable under IPC.
Judgment: The court recognized electronic harassment as a form of criminal harassment. Conviction upheld under Section 354A IPC.
Case 4: National Commission for Women v. Delhi Police (NCW Intervention, 2015)
Facts: Multiple cases of workplace harassment and stalking reported by women employees.
Legal Issue: Need for legal recognition and action for harassment.
Judgment: Reinforced that harassment in both physical and digital spaces is actionable. Delhi Police directed to file FIRs promptly.
3. Coercive Control
Definition: Coercive control is a pattern of controlling behaviors that isolate, intimidate, or dominate a partner, often in domestic settings. This concept is recognized under Section 498A IPC (cruelty) and newer discussions in criminal law about psychological abuse.
Case 5: State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajesh (2017)
Facts: The accused exercised excessive control over his wife’s finances, movement, and social interactions, constituting domestic abuse.
Legal Issue: Whether coercive control without physical violence is punishable.
Judgment: Court held that psychological domination and control causing mental distress falls under Section 498A IPC (cruelty). Conviction upheld.
Case 6: R v. Ireland (UK, 1998)
Facts: Persistent phone calls and psychological abuse caused severe psychiatric harm.
Legal Issue: Recognition of psychological abuse as criminal conduct.
Judgment: The House of Lords recognized that sustained psychological harassment can constitute assault. Important precedent for coercive control.
Case 7: State of Punjab v. Amandeep Singh (2020)
Facts: A husband repeatedly restricted his wife from interacting with family and friends and threatened her with social ostracism.
Legal Issue: Applicability of coercive control under IPC.
Judgment: Court emphasized that non-physical abuse that limits freedom and causes fear can be prosecuted under Section 498A and 506 IPC (criminal intimidation).
Key Observations from Case Law
Digital harassment (texts, calls, social media) is actionable and increasingly recognized by Indian courts.
Coercive control does not require physical violence; psychological control and isolation are sufficient for prosecution.
Stalking must involve repeated behavior causing fear or distress.
Courts are moving towards holistic understanding, treating mental, emotional, and psychological abuse with the same seriousness as physical abuse.
RELATED Blog
0 comments