Cyber Harassment, Defamation, And Online Offenses
π I. Cyber Harassment, Defamation, and Online Offenses: Legal Overview
1. Cyber Harassment
Cyber harassment includes:
Sending threatening, obscene, or offensive messages online
Stalking or repeatedly contacting someone through email, social media, or messaging apps
Morphing images to cause embarrassment or shame
Using social media to spread false or hurtful information
Relevant Laws:
Section 354D IPC β Cyber stalking
Section 509 IPC β Word, gesture, or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman
Section 67, 67A of the IT Act, 2000 β Publishing or transmitting obscene material
2. Online Defamation
Online defamation occurs when false statements are made about someone on the internet that harm their reputation.
Relevant Laws:
Section 499 IPC β Criminal defamation
Section 500 IPC β Punishment for defamation
IT Act, 2000 β For medium of offense (internet, social media, etc.)
3. Other Cyber Offenses
Includes:
Cyberbullying
Impersonation
Email spoofing
Hacking and data theft
Relevant Sections:
Section 66C β Identity theft
Section 66D β Cheating by impersonation
Section 43 β Hacking/data breach
π§ββοΈ II. Important Case Laws (Explained in Detail)
1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Citation: AIR 2015 SC 1523
Facts:
Two girls in Maharashtra were arrested under Section 66A of the IT Act for posting and liking a Facebook comment criticizing a bandh after Bal Thackerayβs death.
Issue:
Is Section 66A, which criminalized sending "offensive messages" online, unconstitutional?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional, holding it violated Article 19(1)(a) β freedom of speech and expression.
The Court said the section was vague and overly broad, allowing arbitrary arrests for online speech.
Importance:
This landmark case protected citizens' right to free speech online and ensured people arenβt punished for mere opinions or criticism.
2. Kalandi Charan Lenka v. State of Odisha (2017)
Citation: 2017 SCC OnLine Ori 370
Facts:
A girl was stalked and harassed online through fake Facebook profiles, where her morphed obscene pictures were posted. The accused also sent threatening emails and messages.
Charges Applied:
Sections 354D, 507 IPC β Stalking and criminal intimidation
Section 66E, 67 of IT Act β Privacy violation and obscene material online
Judgment:
The Orissa High Court took a strong stance against cyber harassment, noting the serious mental trauma caused to the victim. Bail was denied to the accused.
Importance:
Set a precedent for treating online stalking and image morphing seriously, especially when it impacts a womanβs dignity.
3. SMC Pneumatics (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Jogesh Kwatra (2004)
Court: Delhi High Court
Facts:
An employee sent defamatory and abusive emails about his company and bosses to various internal and external parties. The emails were traced to his personal ID.
Legal Action:
A civil defamation suit was filed under the Indian Penal Code and IT Act.
Judgment:
The court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from sending such emails.
Recognized that defamation could occur through email and internet under Indian law.
Importance:
This was one of the first cases of cyber defamation in India. It established that companies and individuals can seek civil remedies against online defamation.
4. State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti (2004)
Court: Chennai Cyber Crime Cell
Facts:
The accused created a fake email ID and posted defamatory and obscene content about a woman in a Yahoo message group. He also sent offensive messages to her regularly.
Charges:
Section 469 IPC β Forgery for harming reputation
Section 509 IPC β Insulting the modesty of a woman
Section 67 IT Act β Publishing obscene material
Judgment:
The accused was convicted and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment and fined, making it the first cybercrime conviction in India under Section 67 of the IT Act.
Importance:
This case was a turning point for cyber law enforcement, showing that the legal system could successfully handle and convict offenders in cyber harassment cases.
5. Swami Ramdev v. Facebook, Google, Twitter (2019)
Citation: 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10701
Facts:
Videos of defamatory content against Baba Ramdev were uploaded on global platforms like Facebook and YouTube. Though Indian courts ordered their takedown, they continued to be available outside India.
Issue:
Can Indian courts direct global takedown of content hosted on international platforms?
Judgment:
The Delhi High Court held that:
If content is found defamatory under Indian law, courts can order global takedown of such content.
Internet companies must take down URLs not just in India but worldwide.
Importance:
The case strengthened Indiaβs position in controlling cross-border defamation and protecting reputation in the digital age.
π§Ύ Summary Table of Legal Provisions Used:
| Offense | Relevant IPC Sections | Relevant IT Act Sections |
|---|---|---|
| Cyber Harassment | 354D, 509, 507 | 66E, 67, 67A |
| Online Defamation | 499, 500 | 66A (repealed), 69A |
| Cyber Stalking | 354D | 66C, 66D |
| Image Morphing | 292, 509 | 66E, 67 |
| Threats & Obscenity | 506, 507 | 67, 67A |
β Conclusion
Cyber harassment and defamation are now clearly recognized as punishable offenses in India, both civilly and criminally. Courts have interpreted old laws like the IPC in light of modern technology and have supported victims with landmark judgments. The IT Act, 2000 complements these provisions, especially in crimes involving email, social media, and internet platforms.
RELATED Blog
0 comments