Cyber Harassment, Defamation, And Online Crime
🧾 Understanding Cyber Harassment, Defamation, and Online Crime
Definitions
Cyber Harassment:
Targeted online behavior intended to threaten, intimidate, or harm an individual.
Includes stalking, trolling, sending threatening messages, or publishing personal content without consent.
Cyber Defamation:
Publishing false information online that damages a person’s reputation.
Includes social media posts, blogs, and other digital content.
Online Crime:
Crimes committed using digital platforms or affecting digital infrastructure, such as hacking, phishing, identity theft, and revenge porn.
Legal Framework in India
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 499/500: Defamation
Section 507: Criminal intimidation by electronic communication
Section 354D: Cyberstalking
Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act)
Section 66A: Sending offensive messages online (struck down in 2015)
Section 66C: Identity theft
Section 66D: Cheating by impersonation
Section 66E: Violation of privacy (non-consensual capture/sharing of images)
Section 67, 67A: Publishing obscene content
Other Relevant Laws
Protection of Women from Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act, 2013 for workplace digital abuse
Cybercrime rules under IT Amendment Act, 2008 for intermediaries’ liability
⚖️ Landmark Case Laws (Detailed)
1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) – Online Speech and Harassment
Facts:
Section 66A of IT Act allowed criminal prosecution for “offensive messages” online.
Many individuals were arrested for posting political or personal opinions.
Legal Issue:
Whether Section 66A violated freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a).
Judgment:
Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional.
Held that laws must be precise and narrowly defined to prevent arbitrary harassment online.
Significance:
Safeguarded freedom of expression while clarifying the scope of prosecutable online harassment.
2. State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti (2004) – Cyberstalking via Email
Facts:
Accused harassed a woman using fake email IDs, sending defamatory and obscene content.
Legal Issues:
Application of IPC 500 (defamation), 507 (criminal intimidation) and IT Act 66 (hacking/fraud).
Judgment:
Convicted for cyberstalking, defamation, and intimidation.
Significance:
First conviction in India for email-based harassment.
Established that digital harassment carries same consequences as offline crimes.
3. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) – Non-Consensual Sharing of Content
Facts:
Private videos of the victim were uploaded online without consent.
Legal Issues:
Whether non-consensual digital content is punishable under IT Act.
Judgment:
Supreme Court ruled that sharing private material without consent is an offense under IT Act.
Ordered content removal and victim compensation.
Significance:
Strengthened laws against digital abuse and privacy violations.
4. Avnish Bajaj v. State (2004) – Intermediary Liability
Facts:
Offensive content posted on bazee.com, an online marketplace, led to legal action against the owner.
Legal Issues:
Are intermediaries responsible for user-generated content?
Judgment:
Initially convicted, later acquitted after IT Amendment 2008 introduced safe harbor protections.
Platforms must act upon notice to avoid liability.
Significance:
Defined the liability of digital intermediaries for harassment, defamation, or offensive content.
5. Arushi Jain v. Union of India (2019) – Identity Theft and Cyber Fraud
Facts:
Accused created fake social media profiles to defame and financially exploit the victim.
Legal Issues:
Application of IT Act 66C (identity theft) and 66D (cheating by impersonation).
Judgment:
Convicted for identity theft, fraud, and harassment.
Ordered blocking of fake accounts and victim compensation.
Significance:
Reinforced that digital identity theft is a punishable cybercrime.
6. Digital Assault – Rupan Deol Bajaj v. KPS Gill (1995)
Facts:
KPS Gill was accused of sending threatening and offensive communication via electronic means.
Judgment:
Court highlighted that threats, intimidation, or harassment via digital communication are punishable under IPC Sections 507 and 509.
Significance:
Early recognition of digital communication as a medium for harassment.
7. Supreme Court Guidelines for Cybercrime (2018–2019)
Facts:
Various petitions sought intervention in harassment, revenge porn, and identity theft cases.
Legal Directives:
Courts directed:
Fast-track investigation of cybercrime cases
Blocking offensive content online
Protection of victims’ identity
Significance:
Strengthened judicial oversight and victim protection in online harassment and defamation cases.
🧠Key Takeaways
Cyber harassment is legally actionable: Digital stalking, threats, and intimidation carry serious consequences.
Defamation applies online: False and harmful digital content is treated the same as offline defamation.
Intermediaries’ responsibility: Online platforms must act against harassment or face legal consequences.
Privacy is protected: Non-consensual sharing of intimate or private content is criminalized.
Victim protection and compensation: Courts increasingly order removal of content and compensation.
Evolution of laws: Judicial interpretation balances freedom of speech and protection from online crime.
RELATED Blog
comments