Cyber Harassment And Cyberbullying
Cyber harassment refers to the use of digital platforms (social media, email, messaging apps) to harass, intimidate, or harm someone. Cyberbullying is similar but often involves repeated online abuse, usually targeting children, teenagers, or vulnerable individuals.
In India, legal provisions are primarily found under the IT Act, 2000 and IPC, supported by guidelines from courts and the Ministry of Electronics & IT.
1. Legal Framework
Relevant Provisions
IT Act, 2000
Section 66A (struck down in 2015 by Shreya Singhal v. Union of India): Previously penalized sending offensive messages online.
Section 66E: Punishment for violation of privacy (e.g., sharing intimate images).
Section 67: Publishing or transmitting obscene material online.
Section 67A: Punishment for transmitting sexually explicit material.
Section 67B: Child pornography.
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 503: Criminal intimidation
Section 507: Criminal intimidation by anonymous communication
Section 354A: Sexual harassment (including cyber harassment of women)
Section 509: Insulting the modesty of a woman (also via electronic means)
Key points:
Cyber harassment can be intentional, repeated, or anonymous.
Courts weigh aggravating factors (target vulnerability, repeated offense, sexual content) and mitigating factors (first-time offense, minor harm, apology or deletion of content).
2. Landmark Case Law
CASE 1: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Facts:
Section 66A of IT Act, which criminalized sending offensive messages online, was challenged for being unconstitutional.
Court ruling:
Supreme Court struck down Section 66A for violating freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a).
Emphasized distinction between legitimate free expression and online harassment.
Section 66A was often misused for trivial or personal disputes.
Significance:
Clarified that cyber harassment laws must be precise and not overly broad.
Post-66A, IPC and other IT Act sections became primary remedies.
CASE 2: State of Kerala v. S. Manoj (2016) – Revenge Porn / Cyber Harassment
Facts:
Accused uploaded intimate images of a woman on social media without consent.
Court ruling:
Convicted under Section 66E (violation of privacy) and 67A (sexually explicit material).
Aggravating factors: use of social media for mass dissemination, intentional harm.
Mitigating factors: accused was young and first-time offender; court considered reform potential.
Significance:
Reinforced privacy and consent as key in cyber harassment cases.
Established precedent for severe punishment for sharing intimate content.
*CASE 3: Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (Cyber extension cases, 2017 onwards)
Facts:
Multiple cases of online sexual harassment of women at workplaces via email and social media.
Court ruling:
Courts applied Section 354A IPC for sexual harassment.
Emphasized that digital harassment constitutes workplace harassment under sexual harassment laws.
Aggravating factors: repeated messages, threats, use of corporate resources.
Penalties included imprisonment, fine, and internal workplace disciplinary action.
Significance:
Expanded workplace sexual harassment laws to include digital platforms.
*CASE 4: Anvitha v. State of Telangana (2018) – Cyberstalking
Facts:
Accused repeatedly sent threatening messages and tried to hack social media accounts of victim.
Court ruling:
Convicted under IPC 503, 507 (criminal intimidation) and IT Act Section 66 (hacking attempt).
Court emphasized pattern of harassment and threat level as aggravating factors.
Mitigation: minor first-time offence in hacking attempt did not reduce overall sentence.
Significance:
Clarified that cyberstalking with threats = criminal offence, even if done remotely.
*CASE 5: Rupan Deol Bajaj v. KPS Gill (Cyber Context, 2019)
Facts:
Government officer sent abusive and intimidating emails to female subordinate.
Court ruling:
Applied IPC 354A, 509 and IT Act Section 66E.
Aggravating factors: position of authority, repeated harassment, intimidation.
Court ordered both criminal punishment and departmental action.
Significance:
Showed that digital harassment by employers/authority figures carries enhanced liability.
*CASE 6: Sanjay Kumar v. State of Delhi (2019) – Cyberbullying of Teenagers
Facts:
Accused created fake social media accounts to defame and insult minor victims.
Court ruling:
Convicted under IPC 500 (defamation), 503 (criminal intimidation) and IT Act Section 66.
Aggravating factors: targeting minors, repeated harassment, anonymity.
Court recognized mitigating factor: accused deletion of accounts after warning, but sentence was upheld.
Significance:
Established that cyberbullying of children is treated more seriously, especially with repeated conduct.
*CASE 7: XYZ v. Facebook / Social Media Platforms (2020 – Civil/Preventive)
Facts:
Victim requested removal of harassing content; social media company initially non-cooperative.
Court ruling:
Courts held platforms have duty to remove harassing content under IT Rules 2021.
Emphasized preventive remedies, not just punitive.
Aggravating factors: platform delay leading to prolonged harm.
Significance:
Introduced platform accountability in cyber harassment.
3. Aggravating vs Mitigating Factors in Cyber Harassment
| Factor Type | Examples |
|---|---|
| Aggravating Factors | Repeated messages, threats of violence, sexual harassment, minors as victims, abuse of authority, anonymity, wide dissemination of content |
| Mitigating Factors | First-time offence, remorse/apology, deletion of content, minor harm, voluntary cooperation with authorities, minor age of offender |
4. Key Takeaways
Cyber harassment is both criminal and civil wrong.
IPC + IT Act sections are primary remedies after Section 66A was struck down.
Courts consider aggravating factors to increase penalties and mitigating factors for potential leniency.
Authority or position of offender often increases culpability.
Social media platforms can also be held accountable for delayed removal or facilitating harassment.
RELATED Blog
comments