Analysis Of Online Harassment
Online Harassment: Overview
Online harassment refers to the use of the internet, social media, or digital platforms to threaten, intimidate, or humiliate someone. It includes:
Cyberstalking
Cyberbullying
Sending obscene or threatening messages
Doxxing (sharing private information)
Non-consensual sharing of intimate content
Key Legal Provisions in India:
IPC Section 354D – Stalking
IPC Section 499 & 500 – Defamation
IPC Section 507 – Criminal intimidation by electronic means
IT Act 2000 – Sections 66A (struck down), 66C, 66E, 67, 67A
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act – online sexual harassment of minors
Case Studies on Online Harassment
1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) – Struck Down Section 66A of IT Act
Facts:
Several individuals were arrested for posting comments on social media criticizing politicians. The arrests were made under Section 66A of IT Act 2000, which criminalized “offensive messages through communication service.”
Legal Issues:
Whether Section 66A violated freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a).
Misuse of law for online harassment or dissent suppression.
Judgment:
Supreme Court struck down Section 66A, terming it vague and unconstitutional.
Held that online criticism and expression cannot be criminalized unless it incites violence or is defamatory.
Significance:
Landmark judgment protecting online freedom of speech.
Highlighted misuse of laws for punishing online harassment disguised as offensive messaging.
2. State of Maharashtra v. Naveen (2016) – Cyberstalking and Threats
Facts:
Naveen was accused of sending repeated threatening messages to his ex-girlfriend over social media, intimidating her to resume a relationship.
Legal Issues:
Applicability of IPC Section 354D (stalking) and IT Act Section 66E (privacy violation).
Determination of “harassment” in online context.
Judgment:
Court convicted Naveen for cyberstalking and criminal intimidation.
Sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 2 years and fine.
Significance:
Clarified that online harassment is equivalent to offline harassment legally.
Reinforced that repeated messaging, threats, or stalking constitutes a punishable offence.
3. State of Karnataka v. Rohit (2018) – Revenge Porn Case
Facts:
Rohit shared intimate videos of his ex-partner on WhatsApp and social media without consent.
Legal Issues:
Applicability of IPC Sections 66E (privacy), 354C (voyeurism), and 507 (criminal intimidation).
Protection of victim privacy and consent in digital media.
Judgment:
Convicted under multiple sections; sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
Court emphasized the seriousness of non-consensual sharing of private content.
Significance:
Landmark for “revenge porn” cases in India.
Reinforced that online harassment extends to sexual exploitation and privacy violations.
4. State of Telangana v. Ravi (2019) – Cyberbullying Minor
Facts:
Ravi repeatedly sent abusive messages and humiliating content to a minor student on social media, leading to severe psychological trauma.
Legal Issues:
Applicability of POCSO Act, IPC Sections 354D, and IT Act Sections 66A (misuse).
Role of parents and schools in reporting online harassment.
Judgment:
Ravi was convicted for cyber harassment of a minor and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment.
Court directed state authorities to provide counseling to the minor victim.
Significance:
Highlighted the vulnerability of minors online.
Showed that cyberbullying is treated seriously, with combined use of IPC and IT Act provisions.
5. Sabu v. State of Kerala (2017) – Social Media Defamation
Facts:
Sabu created multiple fake profiles to post defamatory content about a business rival on Facebook.
Legal Issues:
Applicability of IPC Sections 499 & 500 for defamation online.
Impact on reputation and mental health.
Judgment:
Court convicted Sabu for online defamation, fined Rs. 50,000, and ordered an apology published online.
Significance:
Demonstrated that online harassment via defamation is punishable.
Courts treat online reputation equally seriously as offline reputation.
6. Shweta Singh v. Union of India (2020) – Cyberstalking & Intimidation
Facts:
Shweta Singh received threats and abusive messages from a former colleague on Instagram and email, with repeated harassment.
Legal Issues:
Applicability of IPC Sections 354D, 507, and IT Act Sections 66C, 66E.
Definition of persistent harassment and criminal liability online.
Judgment:
Court issued injunctions against the accused and sentenced him to 1-year imprisonment and fine.
Court emphasized that online stalking causes psychological harm equivalent to physical stalking.
Significance:
Clarified that courts can issue preventive orders and injunctions in online harassment cases.
Reinforced enforcement of privacy and digital security for victims.
7. International Case: Elonis v. United States (2015, US) – Online Threats
Facts:
Anthony Elonis posted violent rap lyrics on Facebook threatening his ex-wife and coworkers. He argued it was artistic expression, not real threats.
Legal Issues:
Distinguishing between free speech and true online threats.
Required intent to threaten for criminal liability.
Judgment:
U.S. Supreme Court held that mens rea (intent) is required to convict for online threats.
Mere perception of threat by victim is insufficient.
Significance:
Emphasized intent is key in criminalizing online harassment.
Influenced jurisprudence on online threats globally.
Key Legal Principles from Online Harassment Cases
Online harassment is equivalent to offline harassment – legally recognized under IPC and IT Act.
Consent and privacy are central – non-consensual sharing of intimate content is punishable.
Minor victims get special protection under POCSO Act and IT Act provisions.
Freedom of speech is limited when it results in harassment or defamation online.
Intent (mens rea) matters in prosecuting online threats.
Preventive remedies like injunctions and blocking access are part of judicial relief.
RELATED Blog
comments