Cyberbullying Among Teenagers
π 1. What is Cyberbullying?
Cyberbullying refers to bullying or harassment that takes place over digital devices like mobile phones, computers, and tablets through SMS, text, apps, social media, forums, or gaming where people can view, participate in, or share content.
Key Forms:
Sending hurtful or threatening messages
Spreading false rumors online
Posting embarrassing photos or videos
Creating fake profiles to harass
Group shaming on messaging platforms (like WhatsApp or Instagram)
π 2. Applicable Laws in India
| Law | Relevant Sections |
|---|---|
| Information Technology Act, 2000 | Sections 66A (repealed), 66C, 66D, 67, 67A |
| Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Sections 499, 500, 507, 354D, 506, 509 |
| Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 | Applies if the accused is under 18 |
| POCSO Act, 2012 | If the bullying involves sexual harassment of minors |
| Indian Education Acts/Guidelines | CBSE and UGC have anti-bullying directives for schools and colleges |
π§ββοΈ 3. Key Case Laws on Cyberbullying Among Teenagers
β 1. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) SCC (6) 632
Facts:
While this case is primarily about privacy and freedom of expression, the Supreme Court emphasized an individual's right to privacy, including in public discourse.
Relevance:
Forms the foundation for recognizing cyberbullying as a violation of privacy, especially when minors are targeted online.
Significance:
Cyberbullying that involves leaking personal information, photos, or videos online can be prosecuted under privacy violations and defamation.
β 2. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241
Facts:
Laid down the landmark guidelines on sexual harassment at workplace.
Relevance:
Extended later by courts and educational boards to school and college settings.
If a teenager cyberbullies a classmate with sexually harassing content, the institution must act under Vishaka guidelines framework.
Significance:
Schools and colleges are responsible for creating safe environmentsβoffline and online.
β 3. S. v. State of Haryana (Juvenile Cyberbullying Case, 2017 β Punjab & Haryana High Court)
Facts:
A Class 10 student was bullied online by classmates who circulated morphed images and defamatory posts. The parents approached the court after the school failed to act.
Held:
The High Court held that cyberbullying by minors can still attract IPC and IT Act charges.
Referred the accused to the Juvenile Justice Board, while ensuring psychological counseling for both victims and perpetrators.
Significance:
Established that age is not a shield for accountability in cases of repeated or severe cyberbullying.
Schools were directed to implement anti-cyberbullying policies.
β 4. Devu v. State of Kerala (Kerala High Court, 2019)
Facts:
Teenagers created a fake Instagram page in the name of a female classmate and posted abusive and obscene content.
Held:
Court ordered immediate removal of the fake profile and invoked Sections 66C, 66E IT Act, and 354D IPC (stalking).
Court emphasized that cyberbullying can amount to sexual harassment, especially if it involves defaming a girl's modesty.
Significance:
A landmark judgment that equated online shaming and trolling of teen girls with sexual offences under IPC and IT Act.
β 5. Facebook India Online Services v. Union of India (Delhi High Court, 2020)
Facts:
Concerns arose over Facebook and Instagramβs delay in removing objectionable posts made by teenagers bullying peers.
Held:
Platforms like Facebook and Instagram must act quickly to remove abusive content, especially if the victim is a minor.
Social media companies have a legal and moral duty to prevent cyberbullying under due diligence obligations in the IT Rules.
Significance:
Court emphasized platform liability in protecting teenagers from online harassment.
Victims can approach the police and court even if perpetrators are minors.
β 6. XYZ v. Union of India (Delhi High Court, 2022 β Anonymized Case)
Facts:
A school-going girl was repeatedly cyberbullied by male classmates through WhatsApp and Telegram groups. Despite complaints, no FIR was registered.
Held:
Ordered Delhi Police to register FIR and book the accused minors under Juvenile Justice Act, IT Act, and IPC.
Ordered counseling and social intervention for the victim and the accused.
Significance:
Courts reinforced that non-registration of cyberbullying complaints is a violation of rights.
Schools and parents must work with police to combat cyberbullying.
π 4. Summary Table of Key Cases
| Case Name | Key Issue | Law Applied | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rajagopal v. TN (1994) | Right to privacy | Article 21 | Basis for online dignity |
| Vishaka v. Rajasthan (1997) | Sexual harassment in institutions | Guidelines | Basis for anti-bullying policies |
| S. v. State of Haryana (2017) | School cyberbullying by boys | IPC, IT Act, JJ Act | Juvenile board proceedings |
| Devu v. State of Kerala (2019) | Fake Instagram account abuse | 66C, 354D IPC | Removal + prosecution |
| Facebook v. UOI (2020) | Platform responsibility | IT Act, IT Rules | Duty to remove content |
| XYZ v. UOI (2022) | WhatsApp bullying of a girl | IPC, IT Act, JJ Act | FIR + counseling ordered |
π§ 5. Psychological and Social Impact
Victims suffer from depression, anxiety, self-harm, or suicidal thoughts
Can lead to school dropouts or academic decline
Perpetrators, often unaware of legal consequences, may face long-term stigma if prosecuted
Family and school support are critical in healing and prevention
π‘οΈ 6. Preventive Measures & Institutional Guidelines
| Authority | Guideline/Action |
|---|---|
| CBSE | Circulars to implement anti-bullying policies |
| UGC | Anti-ragging and anti-cyberbullying directives |
| RTE Act | Mandates child protection in schools |
| IT Rules, 2021 | Social media platforms must remove content within 24β72 hours if flagged |
| Schools | Required to maintain cyber safety cells, appoint nodal teachers |
β 7. Conclusion
Cyberbullying among teenagers is a growing digital threat in India, but the legal and judicial framework is evolving rapidly to protect young individuals. Courts have shown that minors can be held accountable under the law, but with an emphasis on rehabilitation rather than harsh punishment.
Judgments like Devu v. Kerala and XYZ v. UOI demonstrate that the judiciary is sensitive to teenage cyber abuse, while also ensuring platforms, schools, and families act responsibly.
RELATED Blog
0 comments