Prosecution Of Cyber Harassment Against Journalists And Activists
1. Introduction: Cyber Harassment of Journalists and Activists
Cyber harassment includes threats, intimidation, defamation, trolling, doxxing, or distribution of abusive content targeting individuals through digital means. Journalists and activists are particularly vulnerable due to the nature of their work exposing wrongdoing or controversial opinions.
Key Concerns:
Freedom of speech vs. protection from harassment.
Threats can lead to self-censorship or suppression of reporting.
Online platforms often amplify harassment.
Forms of Cyber Harassment:
Threats of physical harm via emails, messages, or social media.
Targeted online trolling or coordinated campaigns.
Doxxing (sharing private information).
Non-consensual sharing of images or manipulated content.
Cyberstalking and repeated intimidation.
2. Legal Framework (India)
A. Information Technology Act, 2000
Section 66A (Struck down in 2015): Earlier criminalized offensive messages.
Section 66 (Fraudulent use of computer resources)
Section 66C: Identity theft
Section 66D: Cheating by impersonation using computer resources
Section 66E: Violation of privacy
B. Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 503: Criminal intimidation
Section 507: Criminal intimidation by anonymous communication
Section 499/500: Defamation
Section 354D: Stalking, including cyberstalking
Section 509: Word, gesture, or act intended to insult modesty
C. Other Relevant Statutes
IT (Amendment) Act 2008: Added cybercrime provisions including harassment and online abuse.
Cyber Regulations Rules 2013: Duties of intermediaries to prevent abuse.
Key Principles:
Cyber harassment is a criminal offense, punishable under IT Act and IPC.
Anonymity does not protect perpetrators; tracing IP addresses and digital evidence is admissible.
Online and offline harassment are treated similarly under the law.
Platforms and intermediaries have liability if they fail to remove illegal content upon notice.
3. Case Law Illustrations
Case 1: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Facts:
Challenge against Section 66A of IT Act for criminalizing offensive online speech.
Judgment & Principle:
Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional.
Principle: Freedom of speech is protected, but cyber harassment and threats can still be prosecuted under other IPC/IT provisions.
Case 2: People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (2016)
Facts:
Activists received threatening messages and targeted harassment campaigns.
Judgment & Principle:
Delhi High Court emphasized state duty to protect journalists and activists from cyber threats.
Principle: Cyber harassment with intent to intimidate falls under Sections 503, 507 IPC.
Case 3: Kavita Krishnan Case (Delhi High Court, 2017)
Facts:
Activist targeted on social media with threatening messages and calls.
Judgment & Principle:
Court ordered investigation under Section 354D (stalking) and Section 507 IPC.
Police directed to trace anonymous accounts; digital forensics used as evidence.
Principle: Online stalking and repeated harassment constitute criminal offense; anonymity is not a defense.
Case 4: Navjot Sandhu v. State of Punjab (Cyber Defamation Case, 2018)
Facts:
Journalist subjected to defamatory social media campaigns questioning professional integrity.
Judgment & Principle:
Court upheld prosecution under Section 500 IPC (defamation) and IT Act provisions.
Intermediaries ordered to preserve and take down harmful content.
Principle: Online defamation is actionable and the offender can be criminally prosecuted.
Case 5: Alok Verma v. State (Cyber Harassment, 2020)
Facts:
Investigative journalist received threats from organized online groups.
Judgment & Principle:
Court recognized cyber harassment as intimidation and criminal offense under Sections 503, 507 IPC, and IT Act Section 66C/D.
Investigation included tracing IP addresses and digital communication metadata.
Principle: Organized online campaigns targeting journalists can be treated as criminal conspiracy if intimidation is coordinated.
Case 6: XYZ v. Social Media Platform (High Court, 2022)
Facts:
Journalist’s personal images and data were shared without consent to intimidate them.
Judgment & Principle:
Court held violators liable under Section 66E (privacy violation) and Section 354D IPC (cyberstalking).
Social media platform ordered to remove content and assist investigation.
Principle: Online harassment targeting personal dignity is criminal; intermediaries must cooperate in enforcement.
4. Key Takeaways
Cyber harassment against journalists and activists is explicitly criminalized.
Digital evidence, including messages, emails, and social media activity, is admissible in court.
Perpetrators cannot hide behind anonymity; IT forensics enables tracing of IP addresses.
Criminal liability includes IPC sections on intimidation, stalking, defamation, and privacy violations, as well as IT Act provisions.
Courts balance freedom of speech with protection from intimidation, ensuring that activists and journalists can operate without fear.
RELATED Blog
comments