Landmark Judgments On Cyberstalking
1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Issue: Constitutionality of Section 66A of the IT Act, which was widely used to prosecute offensive online communications, including cyberstalking
Facts:
Section 66A criminalized sending offensive or menacing messages via electronic communication. Many cases of cyberstalking and online harassment were filed under this provision.
Judicial Interpretation:
The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A for being vague and violating freedom of speech, but it acknowledged the importance of protecting individuals from cyber harassment and stalking through other provisions.
Impact on Cyberstalking:
The judgment led courts and legislators to rely more heavily on specific sections like Section 354D IPC (stalking) and Sections 66E and 67 IT Act for prosecuting cyberstalking and online harassment.
Key Takeaway:
While Section 66A was struck down, protection against cyberstalking remains enforceable under other laws.
2. Bhavana Reddy v. State of Telangana (2019) - Telangana High Court
Issue: Application of IPC Section 354D (stalking) and IT Act provisions in cyberstalking cases
Facts:
The petitioner was repeatedly harassed through messages and social media by the accused.
Judicial Interpretation:
The Court held that cyberstalking constitutes stalking under IPC Section 354D, even if done through electronic means. It emphasized that repeated unwanted communication and following online can cause serious mental trauma.
Outcome:
The Court upheld the registration of FIR and prosecution under stalking and IT Act provisions.
Key Takeaway:
Cyberstalking is punishable under IPC and IT Act, recognizing digital harassment as stalking.
3. Avnish Bajaj v. State (2005)
Issue: Liability for obscene content and harassment on online platforms
Facts:
The accused was held responsible for obscene content published on an e-commerce website and related harassment.
Judicial Interpretation:
The Delhi High Court expanded the scope of the IT Act to hold intermediaries and individuals liable for content causing harassment and defamation, including cyberstalking-related offenses.
Impact:
This case laid the foundation for holding online platforms accountable for preventing and responding to cyber harassment.
Key Takeaway:
Cyberstalking offenses can extend liability to those controlling digital platforms.
4. Rinku Verma v. Union of India (2020)
Issue: Protection against cyber harassment and stalking of women
Facts:
The petitioner sought stricter enforcement of cyberstalking laws and awareness about digital harassment.
Judicial Interpretation:
The Delhi High Court stressed the need for proactive police action against cyberstalking, and emphasized the application of Section 354D IPC and Section 66A IT Act (now struck down) alternatives such as Section 66E and 67.
Outcome:
The Court urged police to sensitize officers on cyberstalking laws and protect victims.
Key Takeaway:
Judiciary recognizes the growing threat of cyberstalking and demands effective enforcement.
5. State of Karnataka v. S. Venkatesh (2022)
Issue: Sentencing in cyberstalking causing mental harassment
Facts:
The accused was convicted for repeatedly sending threatening messages and stalking the victim online.
Judicial Interpretation:
The Karnataka High Court sentenced the accused under IPC Section 354D and IT Act Sections 66 and 67, highlighting that cyberstalking is a serious crime warranting strict punishment to deter offenders.
Outcome:
A substantial jail term was imposed, signaling zero tolerance for cyber harassment.
Key Takeaway:
Courts impose stringent sentences to combat cyberstalking and protect victims.
Summary of Judicial Approach to Cyberstalking:
| Aspect | Judicial Stand |
|---|---|
| Legal provisions applied | IPC Section 354D (stalking), IT Act Sections 66, 66E, 67 |
| Recognition of online acts | Cyberstalking recognized as stalking under IPC |
| Accountability of platforms | Online intermediaries can be held liable |
| Victim protection | Courts urge proactive police action and victim support |
| Sentencing | Courts favor strict and deterrent punishment |
RELATED Blog
0 comments