Criminal Liability For Cyber Stalking And Online Harassment
🔹 I. Introduction
Cyberstalking and online harassment are modern manifestations of traditional crimes like stalking, defamation, intimidation, and invasion of privacy — but committed using digital or electronic means such as social media, email, chat platforms, and mobile devices.
These offences involve:
Persistent unwanted contact or monitoring,
Threats, blackmail, or intimidation online,
Circulation of obscene, defamatory, or private material, and
Exploitation or coercion through technology.
Such actions are punishable under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
🔹 II. Relevant Legal Provisions
A. Information Technology Act, 2000
Section 66E – Punishes violation of privacy by capturing or transmitting images of a person’s private area without consent (imprisonment up to 3 years, fine up to ₹2 lakh).
Section 66D – Punishes cheating by personation using computer resources (useful in fake profile or impersonation cases).
Section 67 & 67A – Punish publishing or transmitting obscene or sexually explicit material online.
Section 69A – Empowers blocking of objectionable or harmful online content by the government.
B. Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860
Section 354D – Stalking, including monitoring a woman’s use of the internet or contacting her repeatedly despite disinterest.
Section 509 – Word, gesture, or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.
Section 499 & 500 – Criminal defamation.
Section 507 – Criminal intimidation through anonymous communication.
Section 292 & 294 – Obscene acts and materials.
C. Procedural Provisions
CrPC Section 154 – Allows victims to file FIRs in cyber police stations.
IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 – Oblige social media intermediaries to take down harmful content and assist in investigations.
🔹 III. Landmark Case Laws on Cyberstalking and Online Harassment
Let’s discuss five detailed cases that shaped Indian cyber law jurisprudence regarding online harassment and stalking.
1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1
Facts:
The petition challenged Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalized sending “offensive” messages through electronic communication. It was often misused to arrest people for social media posts.
Issue:
Whether Section 66A violated the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
Judgment:
The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional, holding that it was vague and overbroad, allowing arbitrary interpretation.
However, the Court upheld Sections 69A and 79, emphasizing that hate speech, stalking, and harassment online can still be punished under other provisions (like Sections 66E, 67, 354D IPC).
Significance:
This case became the foundation for defining legitimate limits on online freedom — harassment and threats are not protected speech.
2. State of West Bengal v. Animesh Boxi (2018) (District Court, West Bengal)
Facts:
An engineering student morphed and circulated intimate photos of a woman on social media without her consent. The content went viral, causing severe psychological distress to the victim.
Charges:
Sections 354A, 354C, 354D, 509 IPC and Sections 66E, 67, 67A of the IT Act.
Judgment:
The Tamluk District Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment — making it one of India’s first convictions for cyberstalking and online sexual harassment.
Key Observations:
Circulating private images without consent violates a woman’s dignity and privacy.
Cyber harassment is as severe as physical harassment and must be treated strictly.
Significance:
A landmark judgment that set a precedent for punishing revenge porn and online stalking under both IPC and IT Act provisions.
3. Kalandi Charan Lenka v. State of Odisha (2017) 68 OCR (Criminal) 1 (Orissa HC)
Facts:
A young woman was subjected to fake online profiles and obscene emails created in her name, leading to defamation and distress. The accused was a known person who stalked her physically and online.
Issue:
Whether creation of fake profiles and dissemination of obscene content amounts to offences under IPC and IT Act.
Judgment:
The Orissa High Court upheld the FIR under Sections 354D, 506 IPC and Sections 66C, 66E, 67 IT Act.
Key Observations:
Online stalking, including fake profiles, falls squarely under Section 354D IPC.
Cyber offences cause mental trauma and social harm equivalent to physical offences.
Bail was denied considering the gravity of the cyber harassment.
Significance:
Expanded the scope of “stalking” to include digital impersonation and persistent online pursuit.
4. Sushma Goswami v. State of NCT of Delhi (Delhi High Court, 2019)
Facts:
The accused persistently sent obscene messages and morphed pictures to a woman on WhatsApp and Facebook, even after she blocked him. He also made derogatory posts publicly.
Charges:
Sections 354D, 509 IPC and Sections 66E, 67 IT Act.
Judgment:
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plea for quashing the FIR, observing that repeated digital communication against a woman’s will amounts to stalking.
Key Observations:
The internet does not offer anonymity from criminal law.
Cyberstalking violates not only privacy but also Article 21 (Right to Life and Dignity).
Women have the right to use digital spaces free from harassment.
Significance:
Reaffirmed that online conduct is equally subject to criminal scrutiny as offline acts.
5. Ritu Kohli Case (Delhi, 2001) — First Indian Cyberstalking Case
Facts:
An unknown person used Ritu Kohli’s identity on a chat platform, sharing her phone number and inviting strangers to talk sexually explicit content. She started receiving obscene calls and messages continuously.
Investigation:
Police traced the offender through his internet service provider. It was one of India’s first reported cyberstalking cases.
Outcome:
Though prosecuted under Section 509 IPC (insult to modesty) and Section 67 IT Act, the case prompted the IT Amendment Act of 2008, which added Section 66A (later struck down) and 66E, recognizing cyber harassment as a distinct crime.
Significance:
This case triggered legislative awareness about the need for cyber-specific provisions in India.
🔹 IV. Other Notable Cases (Brief Mentions)
Vineet Kumar Rana v. State of U.P. (2019) – The Allahabad High Court recognized cyberstalking through social media DMs and threats as cognizable and non-bailable under Section 354D IPC.
Smriti Irani v. Facebook India (2021) – Recognized that fake accounts spreading morphed content may invoke Sections 66C, 67A IT Act and IPC 354D.
🔹 V. Key Judicial Principles Evolved
Privacy and Dignity are protected under Article 21 — online harassment violates both.
Mens rea (intent) is crucial but may be inferred from persistent digital conduct.
Gender-neutral approach evolving — though Section 354D currently protects only women, courts recognize that men and others can also be victims.
Intermediary accountability — platforms must cooperate with authorities and remove harmful content.
Anonymity ≠Immunity — offenders can be traced through IP addresses and digital forensics.
🔹 VI. Conclusion
Cyberstalking and online harassment are serious offences that infringe upon personal liberty, dignity, and mental well-being.
Indian law now provides adequate criminal remedies through the combined application of IPC and IT Act provisions, supported by a proactive judiciary.
Courts have consistently emphasized:
Prompt investigation,
Victim protection, and
Strict punishment for offenders who misuse technology.
Thus, cyberspace is not a lawless domain — the same principles of accountability, respect, and privacy apply online as in the physical world.
RELATED Blog
comments