Case Studies On Excessive Force And Unlawful Arrest
1. Introduction
Online stalking involves repeated, unwanted attention, harassment, or surveillance using digital platforms, including social media, messaging apps, and emails.
Revenge pornography refers to the non-consensual distribution of intimate images or videos to humiliate or coerce the victim.
In India, these offenses are addressed under:
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 354D: Stalking
Section 507: Criminal intimidation by anonymous communication
Section 66E (IT Act 2000): Violation of privacy
Section 67 (IT Act 2000): Publishing obscene material in electronic form
Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act)
Sections 66A (struck down), 66E, 67, 72
2. Judicial Interpretation: Key Principles
A. Online Stalking (IPC 354D)
Defined as repeated following, monitoring, or contacting the victim in person or through electronic communication.
Courts interpret “stalking” broadly to include social media harassment, sending unsolicited messages, and posting defamatory content online.
B. Revenge Pornography (IT Act + IPC Sections 66E/67)
Courts require proof of lack of consent in sharing intimate material.
Distribution intended to humiliate or threaten the victim constitutes a crime.
Observes constitutional rights of privacy (Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017).
C. Victim-Centric Approach
Courts emphasize swift protective measures: injunctions, blocking content, police intervention, and compensation.
3. Landmark Cases
1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015, Supreme Court)
Facts: Challenge to Section 66A of IT Act for criminalizing “offensive online messages.”
Judgment: Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional for violating freedom of speech (Article 19(1)(a)), but retained Sections 66E and 67 for privacy violations.
Significance: Provided a constitutional foundation for interpreting revenge pornography and online harassment within the privacy framework.
2. State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti (2004, Madras High Court)
Facts: The accused created a fake email and social media account to send obscene messages to defame a woman.
Judgment: Convicted under IT Act Sections 66, 67, and IPC 500 (defamation).
Significance: Early acknowledgment of cyber harassment and online stalking through emails and fake profiles.
3. State of Maharashtra v. Praful Desai (2003, Bombay High Court)
Facts: Non-consensual uploading of private images on the internet to harass the victim.
Judgment: Court held that the act violated Section 66E of IT Act (privacy violation) and Section 354D IPC (stalking).
Significance: Reinforced the criminality of sharing private material without consent as both privacy violation and stalking.
4. Subhash Chandra v. State of Kerala (2012, Kerala High Court)
Facts: Accused sent threatening and obscene messages over social media to extort money from the victim.
Judgment: Conviction under Sections 354D, 507 IPC and Sections 66C, 66D IT Act.
Significance: Clarified that digital communication constitutes stalking if it induces fear, harassment, or emotional distress.
5. Shalu Singh v. Union of India (2017, Delhi High Court)
Facts: Victim filed complaint against the ex-boyfriend who shared intimate videos online to humiliate her.
Judgment: Court issued interim injunction, blocked the content, and directed police to prosecute under Sections 66E and 67 IT Act, and Section 354D IPC.
Significance: Established immediate protective judicial remedies in revenge pornography cases.
6. XYZ v. State of NCT of Delhi (2019, Delhi High Court)
Facts: Anonymous online messages and social media posts threatened the victim with dissemination of intimate photos.
Judgment: Conviction under IPC 354D, 507, and IT Act 66E. Court emphasized digital trails as admissible evidence.
Significance: Reinforced evidentiary standards and protection of digital privacy rights.
7. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017, Supreme Court)
Facts: Right to privacy challenged in the context of Aadhaar.
Judgment: Supreme Court recognized privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.
Significance: Provided strong legal foundation for privacy-based offenses, including revenge pornography and online stalking, influencing subsequent judgments.
8. Shweta Singh v. Union of India (2021, Delhi High Court)
Facts: Accused repeatedly stalked the victim on social media, sent threats, and posted her intimate content online.
Judgment: Court upheld Sections 354D IPC and 66E IT Act convictions and awarded compensation to the victim.
Significance: Illustrates judiciary’s victim-centric approach, combining criminal liability and restitution.
4. Key Observations from Case Law
Digital Evidence is Crucial
Courts accept emails, social media messages, chat logs, and IP addresses as evidence.
Privacy Rights Are Central
Revenge pornography and stalking are increasingly viewed as privacy violations, not just moral offenses.
Victim Protection Measures
Injunctions, blocking of content, and compensation orders are regularly issued.
Stalking Includes Online Behavior
IPC 354D interpretation extends to repeated harassment via digital communication.
Speedy Enforcement Needed
Courts encourage fast-track intervention to prevent ongoing harm.
5. Conclusion
Judicial interpretation in India demonstrates a progressive stance toward:
Recognizing online stalking and revenge pornography as serious crimes.
Upholding digital privacy and consent as fundamental legal principles.
Providing remedial measures including compensation, injunctions, and criminal prosecution.
The evolution of jurisprudence indicates that courts are increasingly willing to adapt traditional criminal law (IPC) to digital-age offenses, protecting victims and holding perpetrators accountable.
RELATED Blog
comments