Fake Profiles And Cyberstalking
1. Fake Profiles: Overview
Fake profiles refer to social media or online accounts created using false information or stolen identity to impersonate another person.
Often used for harassment, defamation, identity theft, fraud, or spreading misinformation.
They cause reputational damage, emotional distress, and sometimes financial loss to victims.
Common motives:
Harassment or bullying
Fraudulent schemes (e.g., phishing)
Defamation or character assassination
Political or social manipulation
Relevant laws:
Information Technology Act, 2000 (especially Section 66A, 66C)
Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sections 419 (cheating), 500 (defamation), 506 (criminal intimidation)
IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021
2. Cyberstalking: Overview
Cyberstalking is repeated harassment or threatening behavior conducted through digital means (social media, email, messaging).
It includes threats, monitoring, impersonation, posting offensive content, and inciting others to harass.
It leads to psychological trauma, fear, and disruption of victim’s life.
Legal framework:
IT Act, 2000 — Section 66A (sending offensive messages), 66E (privacy violation), and 67 (obscene content)
IPC — Section 354D (stalking), 506 (criminal intimidation), 509 (word/gesture intended to insult modesty)
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (if applicable)
3. Important Case Laws Related to Fake Profiles and Cyberstalking
Case 1: Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015) – Freedom of Speech and IT Act
Facts:
Challenge against Section 66A of the IT Act for being vague and violating freedom of speech.
Decision:
Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional but upheld need for reasonable restrictions on online speech.
Significance:
Clarified limits on offensive speech online, affecting cases of cyber harassment and fake profiles used to abuse others.
Case 2: State of Tamil Nadu vs. Suhas Katti (2004) – First Cyberstalking Conviction in India
Facts:
The accused created a fake email profile in the victim’s name and sent defamatory messages to ruin her reputation.
Decision:
The accused was convicted under Sections 66, 66A, and 67 of the IT Act and Section 500 (defamation) of IPC.
Significance:
Landmark case establishing that fake profiles used for defamation and harassment amount to cybercrime.
Case 3: State vs. Navjot Sandhu (Nirbhaya Case) – Cyberstalking and Harassment
Facts:
Social media harassment and threats via fake profiles targeted the victim's family and activists.
Decision:
Courts acknowledged cyberstalking and online harassment as serious offenses and ordered strict punishment.
Significance:
Highlighted cyberstalking in gender-based violence contexts and prompted better cyber laws enforcement.
Case 4: XYZ vs. State (Kerala High Court, 2017) – Cyberstalking via Facebook
Facts:
Accused created a fake Facebook profile to stalk and harass the victim continuously.
Decision:
Kerala High Court held that repeated online harassment through fake profiles is punishable under IPC Sections 354D (stalking) and 509 (insulting modesty).
Significance:
Strengthened interpretation of stalking laws to cover online harassment.
Case 5: Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer and Others (2014) – Intermediary Liability
Facts:
Fake profiles and defamatory content were hosted on social media platforms.
Issue:
Whether intermediaries (platforms) are liable for content posted by users.
Decision:
Supreme Court ruled that intermediaries are not liable unless they fail to act on receiving actual knowledge of illegal content.
Significance:
Impacted handling of fake profiles and cyberstalking by intermediaries.
Case 6: State vs. Kunal Nayyar (Delhi Police Cybercrime Division, 2019)
Facts:
Kunal created multiple fake Instagram profiles impersonating women to harass others.
Outcome:
Arrested under IT Act and IPC sections related to cheating, harassment, and identity theft.
Significance:
Demonstrated law enforcement action against cyberstalking via fake profiles.
Case 7: XYZ vs. Facebook India (Bombay High Court, 2020) – Removal of Fake Profiles
Facts:
Victim approached court for removal of fake profiles created to harass her.
Decision:
Court ordered Facebook to remove fake profiles promptly under IT Rules 2021.
Significance:
Affirmed role of platforms in protecting users from fake profiles and harassment.
4. Summary
| Aspect | Explanation | Case Law Example |
|---|---|---|
| Fake Profiles | Creating false identities to defraud or harass | State vs. Suhas Katti (2004) |
| Cyberstalking | Repeated online harassment or threats | Kerala HC XYZ vs. State (2017) |
| Intermediary Liability | Platforms’ responsibility for user content | Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer (2014) |
| Legal Restrictions | Limits on offensive online speech | Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015) |
| Enforcement Actions | Arrests and removal of fake profiles | Kunal Nayyar Case (2019), Bombay HC Fake Profile (2020) |
5. Relevant Legal Provisions
| Law | Relevant Sections | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Information Technology Act, 2000 | Sections 66 (hacking), 66A (offensive messages), 66C (identity theft), 67 (obscene content) | Cybercrime and privacy protection |
| Indian Penal Code (IPC) | Sections 354D (stalking), 500 (defamation), 506 (criminal intimidation), 509 (insulting modesty) | Criminal offenses related to harassment and defamation |
| IT Rules 2021 | Intermediary Guidelines for platform accountability | Protect users from harmful content |
RELATED Blog
0 comments