Online Threats And Intimidation
1. Concept of Online Threats and Intimidation
Online threats and intimidation involve using digital platforms—social media, messaging apps, emails, or websites—to harass, threaten, or intimidate individuals. These acts are considered criminal because they endanger personal safety, mental peace, or public order.
Legal Provisions in India
Several laws address online threats and intimidation:
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860
Section 503 – Criminal intimidation
Section 506 – Punishment for criminal intimidation
Section 507 – Criminal intimidation by anonymous communication
Section 509 – Word, gesture, or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman
Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act)
Section 66A (now struck down, but historically used) – Sending offensive messages via communication service
Section 66E – Violation of privacy
Section 67 – Publishing obscene material electronically
Other statutes
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) – For threats targeting minors
Indian Evidence Act & Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) – For evidence collection and cyber investigations
Key Elements of online threats:
Threat/intimidation must create fear of injury or harm (physical, emotional, or reputational).
The threat can be direct or implied, explicit or anonymous.
Platforms include social media, emails, messaging apps, and websites.
2. Case Law on Online Threats and Intimidation
Case 1: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Facts: Section 66A of the IT Act criminalized sending offensive messages online. Several individuals were arrested for posting critical content on social media.
Issue: Whether Section 66A violated free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Judgment: The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A, holding that vague provisions led to misuse against online speech, including threats and intimidation.
Significance: Set boundaries for penalizing online threats, emphasizing clear, specific threats rather than mere offensive speech.
Case 2: State of Maharashtra v. Praful Desai (2019)
Facts: A person sent repeated threatening messages on WhatsApp to coerce a business partner into paying money.
Issue: Whether sending messages online constitutes criminal intimidation.
Judgment: Court held that repeated online messages intending to create fear of injury fall under Sections 503 and 506 IPC.
Significance: Clarified that criminal intimidation extends to digital communications, not just face-to-face threats.
Case 3: Sushant Singh Rajput Cyber Harassment Case (2020)
Facts: After the actor’s death, multiple individuals sent abusive and threatening messages to his family members on social media.
Issue: Whether online threats and intimidation constitute criminal offense.
Judgment: The Delhi High Court held that online harassment causing mental trauma and fear is actionable under IPC 503, 506, and IT Act Sections 66 and 67.
Significance: Recognized psychological impact of online threats, expanding scope beyond physical intimidation.
Case 4: People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (PUCL Online Threats, 2018)
Facts: Social media users were sending targeted threats against activists and journalists online.
Issue: How law enforcement should handle online threats and intimidation.
Judgment: Supreme Court emphasized the duty of police to register FIRs for online threats and examine digital evidence, even if the perpetrator is anonymous.
Significance: Highlighted procedural mechanisms to address online intimidation and the role of investigative authorities in cybercrime.
Case 5: State v. Navjot Sandhu (Parliament Attack Case, 2005) – Online Aspect
Facts: Though primarily terrorism-related, the court addressed threatening communications via emails and websites targeting political figures.
Judgment: Court treated online threats as equivalent to criminal intimidation under IPC Sections 503 and 506.
Significance: Reinforced that online threats are treated seriously, especially when targeting public officials or national security.
Case 6: Delhi High Court – “Woman Threatened Online” Case (2019)
Facts: A woman received abusive and sexually threatening messages on Instagram.
Issue: Applicability of criminal law for online harassment.
Judgment: Court upheld that sending repeated threats or offensive messages online constitutes criminal intimidation and harassment under IPC 503, 506, and 509.
Significance: Established gendered protection against online intimidation, strengthening Section 509 IPC for digital platforms.
Case 7: Cyberbullying Case – Karnataka High Court (2021)
Facts: A teenager was threatened on WhatsApp to extort money from her parents.
Judgment: Court held the messages created fear of harm and therefore amounted to criminal intimidation. Ordered police action and cyber forensic investigation.
Significance: Extended criminal liability to minors and emphasized forensic analysis of digital evidence in online threats.
3. Key Legal Principles from Cases
Online Threats = Criminal Intimidation
Threats delivered digitally are legally equivalent to face-to-face threats if they create fear of harm (IPC Sections 503, 506).
Psychological Impact Matters
Courts consider mental trauma caused by threats online as significant for criminal liability.
Anonymity Does Not Protect Perpetrators
Even anonymous messages fall under IPC Section 507; law enforcement can track digital footprints.
Procedural Aspects
FIR registration is mandatory. Courts emphasize cyber forensic evidence, metadata, and digital trails.
Limits on Free Speech
Shreya Singhal clarified that only threats with intention to intimidate or harm are punishable, not mere offensive or critical speech.
4. Summary
Online threats and intimidation are recognized as serious criminal offenses in India, and courts have gradually clarified:
Threats via social media, emails, or messaging apps are actionable under IPC and IT Act provisions.
Psychological and reputational harm is taken seriously.
Law enforcement is required to track and punish perpetrators, even if anonymous.
Judicial interventions balance freedom of speech with protection from intimidation.
RELATED Blog
comments