Cyberstalking, Harassment, And Defamation Cases
π§ PART I β OVERVIEW
1. Cyberstalking
Definition: Repeated online behavior causing fear, distress, or intimidation to a person.
Legal Provisions:
IPC Section 354D: Stalking.
Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act), Section 66A (struck down in 2015) β previously criminalized offensive messages online.
IT Act Section 66E: Privacy violations via images or videos.
2. Online Harassment
Includes threatening messages, persistent unwanted communication, or cyberbullying.
Relevant Sections:
IPC 354D: Stalking.
IPC 509: Word, gesture, or act intended to insult modesty of a woman.
IT Act Sections 66, 66C, 66D: Cyber fraud, identity theft, impersonation.
3. Cyber Defamation
Definition: Publication of defamatory content online harming reputation.
Legal Provisions:
IPC Sections 499 and 500: Defamation.
IT Act Section 66A (before struck down): Sending offensive or false messages online.
βοΈ PART II β PROCEDURAL FRAMEWORK
Filing Complaint: Usually filed at the local police station or cyber cell.
Investigation: Digital evidence collection, IP tracking, chat logs, emails.
Trial: Conducted in regular criminal courts; cyber cells assist with technical evidence.
Punishment: Imprisonment, fines, restraining orders, and online content removal.
βοΈ PART III β DETAILED CASE LAW ANALYSIS
1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Facts:
Petition challenged Section 66A of IT Act for criminalizing offensive online speech.
Held:
Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional.
Recognized the distinction between free speech and cyber defamation.
Significance:
Clarified that true defamation is still punishable under IPC, but vague restrictions on online speech were unconstitutional.
2. State of Maharashtra v. Praful Desai (2011) β Cyberstalking Case
Facts:
Accused repeatedly sent threatening emails and messages to a woman.
Held:
Convicted under IPC 354D (stalking) and IT Act Sections 66, 66E.
Court emphasized psychological harm caused by online stalking.
Significance:
Established legal recognition of cyberstalking as criminal harassment.
3. Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Yahoo India Pvt. Ltd. (2013) β Online Defamation
Facts:
Allegedly defamatory content posted on Yahoo forums about the petitioner.
Held:
Court allowed civil and criminal defamation claims under IPC 499/500.
Platforms can be intermediaries but liable if they fail to remove defamatory content after notice.
Significance:
Clarified intermediary liability and notice-and-take-down principle.
4. Shashi Tharoor v. R. Rajagopal (2012) β Online Harassment and Defamation
Facts:
Allegedly defamatory blog posts targeted public figure Shashi Tharoor.
Held:
Court upheld criminal defamation under IPC 499/500.
Emphasized intentional harm and public dissemination as key elements.
Significance:
Extended traditional defamation principles to digital content.
5. State of Tamil Nadu v. Ganesh (2014) β Cyberstalking & Harassment
Facts:
Accused repeatedly sent threatening Facebook messages to intimidate ex-girlfriend.
Held:
Convicted under IPC Sections 354D, 509 and IT Act Section 66.
Court held persistent harassment via social media constitutes stalking.
Significance:
Reinforces social media harassment as criminal offense.
6. Arvind Kejriwal v. Subramanian Swamy (2015) β Defamation Online
Facts:
Defamatory posts shared online against politician Kejriwal.
Held:
Court allowed prosecution under IPC Sections 499/500.
Online publication considered equivalent to traditional defamation.
Significance:
Confirms digital defamation is actionable under IPC, even when content is shared on social media.
7. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (Online Messaging Platforms)
Facts:
Challenges over blanket removal of posts and social media censorship.
Held:
Supreme Court ruled intermediaries must act only after receiving proper notice.
Prevented arbitrary blocking or criminal action against users.
Significance:
Sets procedural safeguards in online harassment and defamation cases.
𧩠PART IV β KEY PRINCIPLES
| Principle | Legal Basis | Key Case |
|---|---|---|
| Cyberstalking is criminal harassment | IPC 354D | State of Maharashtra v. Praful Desai |
| Online defamation actionable under IPC 499/500 | IPC Sections 499/500 | Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Yahoo India |
| Intermediary liability limited if notice given | IT Act Section 79 | Shreya Singhal v. UoI |
| Persistent online harassment constitutes stalking | IPC 354D/509 | State of Tamil Nadu v. Ganesh |
| Free speech vs defamation balance | Article 19(1)(a) + IPC | Shreya Singhal v. UoI |
βοΈ PART V β CONCLUSION
Cyberstalking, harassment, and online defamation are taken seriously by Indian courts.
Criminal liability exists for:
Repeated harassment or stalking online (IPC 354D).
Posting defamatory content online (IPC 499/500).
Threats, impersonation, and misuse of personal information (IT Act).
Courts consistently balance freedom of speech with the right to reputation and personal safety.
Intermediary liability rules provide mechanisms for notice-and-take-down but protect platforms from arbitrary prosecution.
RELATED Blog
0 comments