Cyber Harassment, Online Stalking, And Intimidation
1. Introduction
Cyber harassment, online stalking, and intimidation refer to criminal acts committed using digital platforms, social media, messaging apps, and other online channels. They often involve:
Threats and intimidation
Sending obscene or offensive messages
Repeated unwanted contact
Invasion of privacy and impersonation
These offenses can be prosecuted under both the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act).
2. Legal Framework
Relevant provisions include:
IPC Provisions
Section 354D – Stalking (physical or cyber)
Section 503 – Criminal intimidation
Section 507 – Criminal intimidation by electronic communication
Section 509 – Insulting the modesty of a woman
IT Act Provisions
Section 66A – Sending offensive messages (struck down, but similar harassment can be prosecuted under other sections)
Section 66E – Violation of privacy
Section 67 – Publishing or transmitting obscene material
Section 72 – Breach of confidentiality
3. Case Law Illustrations
Here are six landmark cases on cyber harassment, online stalking, and intimidation in India:
Case 1: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Facts:
Challenge to Section 66A of IT Act, which criminalized sending offensive messages online.
Section 66A was widely used to harass individuals for online speech.
Judgment:
Supreme Court struck down Section 66A for being vague and unconstitutional.
Clarified that cyber harassment is still punishable under IPC and remaining IT Act provisions.
Significance:
Reinforced freedom of speech while allowing prosecution for genuine harassment.
Case 2: Suhas Katti v. State (2004)
Facts:
Accused created fake email accounts to send obscene messages and defame a woman online.
Charges:
IPC Sections 509 (insult to modesty)
IT Act Sections 66, 66E, 67
Judgment:
Convicted for cyber harassment, defamation, and intimidation.
Significance:
First major Indian case on cyberstalking and online impersonation.
Established that creating fake profiles to harass is punishable.
Case 3: State of Maharashtra v. Praful Desai (2008)
Facts:
Accused sent repeated threatening messages via email and chat to a woman.
Charges:
IPC Sections 507 (criminal intimidation) and 509
IT Act Sections 66A, 67
Judgment:
Court convicted accused for online harassment and intimidation.
Significance:
Recognized that emails, chats, and online posts are valid evidence in harassment cases.
Case 4: State of Kerala v. Thomas K (2013)
Facts:
Accused sent obscene messages and pictures to a minor girl online.
Charges:
IPC Sections 354D (stalking), 509 (modesty)
IT Act Sections 66E (privacy), 67A (child pornography)
Judgment:
Convicted under IT Act and IPC.
Court emphasized psychological impact on minors.
Significance:
Reinforced cyber protection for minors.
Case 5: Avnish Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra (2005)
Facts:
User uploaded obscene content on an e-commerce platform (Bazee.com).
Legal Issue:
Liability of platform owners vs. users
Judgment:
Initially held the platform liable, but later clarified under Section 79 of IT Act, intermediaries are protected if due diligence is followed.
Significance:
Clarified intermediary liability in cases of cyber harassment.
Case 6: State v. S.K. Sharma (2010)
Facts:
Accused sent threatening messages via SMS and social media to coerce a woman.
Charges:
IPC Sections 503, 507 (criminal intimidation)
IT Act Sections 66A (then)
Judgment:
Convicted for cyber intimidation.
Court recognized online threats carry same legal weight as physical threats.
Significance:
Affirmed that digital harassment and intimidation are punishable offenses.
4. Key Takeaways
Cyber harassment and stalking are punishable under IPC and IT Act.
Creating fake profiles, sending threats, and obscene messages are prosecutable offenses.
Emails, social media posts, and messages are admissible as evidence.
Protection of minors is emphasized under IT Act and IPC.
Intermediary liability is limited if platforms exercise due diligence.
5. Conclusion
Cyber harassment, online stalking, and intimidation are serious offenses. Indian courts have consistently:
Recognized digital communications as valid evidence.
Held perpetrators accountable under IPC and IT Act.
Balanced freedom of speech with protection from harassment.
Clarified intermediary liability for social media and digital platforms.
RELATED Blog
comments