Cyberbullying Targeting Minors And Criminal Liability Of Parents
1. Suhas Katti v. Tamil Nadu (India, 2004–2005)
Facts:
Suhas Katti created a fake Yahoo Messenger account in the name of a woman and sent obscene and defamatory messages to her contacts. The messages implied sexual misconduct and personal improprieties, leading to mental harassment for the victim.
Legal Issues:
Whether online impersonation and sending obscene messages falls under criminal law.
Applicability of Section 67 IT Act (publishing obscene material), Section 469 IPC (forgery with intent to harm), and Section 509 IPC (insulting the modesty of a woman).
Holding:
Suhas Katti was convicted on multiple counts:
Section 469 IPC – 2 years imprisonment
Section 509 IPC – 1 year imprisonment
Section 67 IT Act – 2 years imprisonment
Implications:
This was a landmark Indian case establishing that online harassment and impersonation are punishable offenses, and that digital acts causing mental trauma are treated as seriously as physical acts.
2. People v. Marquan M. (New York, USA, 2012)
Facts:
A 16-year-old student created a fake Facebook profile and posted sexually explicit content about classmates, exposing them to ridicule and harassment. The local Albany County law criminalized cyberbullying.
Legal Issues:
Does the Albany County cyberbullying law violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?
Can online posts by a minor be criminally punishable?
Holding:
The New York Court of Appeals struck down the local law as overly broad and unconstitutional. While the posts were harmful, the law’s language was too vague and violated free speech rights.
Implications:
Highlights the difficulty of legislating cyberbullying while protecting constitutional rights.
Courts must balance child protection with freedom of expression.
Demonstrates that minors can commit online harm, but legal frameworks must be precise.
3. United States v. Lori Drew (2008)
Facts:
Lori Drew, an adult, helped create a fake MySpace profile to harass a 13-year-old girl, Megan Meier, who ultimately committed suicide after being bullied online.
Legal Issues:
Whether creating a fake online profile with intent to harm a minor can be prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).
Holding:
The jury acquitted Drew of felony CFAA violations, and misdemeanor convictions were overturned.
Implications:
Demonstrates challenges in prosecuting online harassment when laws are not specifically designed for cyberbullying.
Shows that adult instigation of cyberbullying of minors can result in serious legal scrutiny, even if convictions are difficult.
4. Rajesh Gambhir v. State of Delhi (Delhi High Court, 2025)
Facts:
An adult sent morphed nude images and threatening messages to a minor girl in Class 9 via WhatsApp and social media.
Legal Issues:
Does sending obscene content and threats online to a minor constitute a serious offense?
Applicability of IT Act sections (67, 66E) and IPC provisions on harassment.
Holding:
The Delhi High Court affirmed a 5-year sentence.
Court emphasized that cyberbullying directed at minors is as mentally traumatic as physical assault.
Implications:
Courts are willing to impose long custodial sentences for online harassment of children.
Marks a strong deterrent for adults targeting minors online.
5. In re: Minor Cyberbullying Case, Karnataka (2018)
Facts:
A group of school students created a WhatsApp group to post edited photos of a 12-year-old girl, mocking and defaming her.
Legal Issues:
Whether online bullying between minors is actionable under IPC Sections 503 & 507 (criminal intimidation) and IT Act provisions.
Holding:
FIR was registered against the students.
The court emphasized the need for digital safety education and counselling for the victim.
Implications:
Online harassment among peers (minors) is actionable.
Schools and parents have a role in supervision, though criminal liability is primarily on the perpetrators.
6. K.C. v. Z. (UK, 2010)
Facts:
A 14-year-old girl was subjected to a campaign of cyberbullying on social media by classmates, including posting defamatory messages and pictures.
Legal Issues:
How to hold perpetrators accountable when both victim and perpetrators are minors?
Applicability of UK harassment laws to online activity.
Holding:
The UK High Court issued an injunction against the perpetrators, forbidding further posting.
Parents were warned about supervising their children’s online activities.
Implications:
Courts can intervene with civil remedies even when minors are perpetrators.
Establishes parental duty to supervise and prevent online abuse.
7. Doe v. MySpace, Inc. (USA, 2008)
Facts:
Minors were targeted via fake MySpace profiles, leading to harassment and emotional trauma. The plaintiffs sued the platform for not removing harmful content.
Legal Issues:
Are online platforms liable for cyberbullying of minors?
Does Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protect social media companies?
Holding:
Platforms have immunity under Section 230 if they act in good faith.
MySpace was not held directly liable.
Implications:
Highlights challenges in holding intermediaries accountable for minor protection.
Suggests that parents and guardians need to supervise children even on protected platforms.
8. Cyberspace Bullying Case, Australia (R v. A.B., 2012)
Facts:
Teenagers created Facebook posts and a fake profile to humiliate a classmate, leading to severe emotional distress.
Legal Issues:
Can minors be criminally responsible for cyberbullying under Australian law?
Holding:
Court held the teenagers accountable under the Criminal Code for stalking and harassment.
Sentences included community service, counselling, and supervision orders.
Implications:
Demonstrates how courts can combine punitive and rehabilitative measures for minor perpetrators.
Reinforces the principle that online harassment of children is serious even among peers.
Summary of Lessons from These Cases
Cyberbullying of minors is taken seriously across jurisdictions, with courts imposing civil or criminal sanctions.
Adults who instigate, facilitate, or directly target minors can face custodial sentences (Delhi HC, Lori Drew case).
Minors themselves can be held accountable, though courts often combine punitive and rehabilitative approaches (Karnataka, UK, Australia cases).
Online platforms are generally protected, but parental supervision is crucial.
Laws are evolving—countries struggle with balancing free speech and child protection.
RELATED Blog
comments