Legal Challenges In Prosecuting Online Harassment And Cyberstalking
๐จ What Is Online Harassment and Cyberstalking?
Online harassment includes repeated or targeted abuse, threats, defamation, or sexual harassment using digital platforms (social media, emails, messaging apps).
Cyberstalking involves persistently following or monitoring someoneโs online activity in a threatening or intrusive manner.
These are generally prosecuted under:
Information Technology Act, 2000 (Sections 66A [struck down], 66E, 67, 67A, 67B)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 354D, 509, 500, 503, 506)
POCSO Act (in cases involving minors)
โ๏ธ Landmark Case Laws with Detailed Explanation
1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Citation: AIR 2015 SC 1523
๐ Facts:
Two women were arrested under Section 66A of the IT Act for posting a comment on Facebook about a bandh after Bal Thackerayโs death.
โ๏ธ Legal Challenge:
Section 66A was overly broad and vague.
It criminalized even harmless online speech, leading to misuse against dissenters or social media users.
๐งโโ๏ธ Courtโs Verdict:
Struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional for violating freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a).
Emphasized that vague laws cannot be used to prosecute online speech.
๐ Significance:
While it protected free speech, it also created a legislative gap in prosecuting genuine online threats and harassment, complicating cybercrime enforcement.
2. Kalandi Charan Lenka v. State of Odisha (2017)
Citation: 2017 SCC OnLine Ori 828
๐ Facts:
A college girl was harassed through fake social media profiles and morphed photos. The accused was allegedly stalking her online and sending obscene messages.
โ๏ธ Legal Issues:
How to prove the identity of the cyberstalker.
Admissibility of electronic evidence.
Whether such acts constitute cyberstalking under Section 354D IPC.
๐งโโ๏ธ Courtโs Verdict:
Upheld charges under Section 66C & 66E IT Act, 354D IPC (cyberstalking), and 509 IPC (insulting modesty).
Admitted forensic evidence from digital devices and email trails.
๐ Significance:
Clarified that persistent online behavior can amount to stalking, even if the perpetrator is anonymous. Proved the need for cyber forensics and strong investigation.
3. Suvendu Adhikari v. State of West Bengal (2021)
Citation: Calcutta HC Order
๐ Facts:
An anonymous social media campaign targeted a political figure with abusive and defamatory posts.
โ๏ธ Legal Issues:
Can defamation and abuse via fake profiles be prosecuted under IPC and IT Act?
Role of platforms in helping identify anonymous users.
๐งโโ๏ธ Courtโs Verdict:
Directed law enforcement to work with social media platforms for IP trace and user data.
Allowed prosecution under Section 500 IPC (defamation), 67 IT Act (obscenity online).
๐ Significance:
Highlighted the jurisdictional and technical challenge in tracking anonymous users, especially with foreign-hosted platforms.
4. State v. Basheer (Kerala Cyberstalking Case, 2019)
Citation: Sessions Court Judgment
๐ Facts:
A woman complained of continuous WhatsApp and Facebook harassment by a former colleague who threatened to leak private photos.
โ๏ธ Legal Challenges:
Gathering electronic records as evidence.
Proving intent and repetition to qualify as stalking.
๐งโโ๏ธ Courtโs Verdict:
Found the accused guilty under Section 354D IPC and Section 67A IT Act.
WhatsApp chats and digital forensic logs were admitted under Section 65B Evidence Act.
๐ Significance:
Demonstrated effective prosecution when technical evidence is preserved properly. Court emphasized the need for proper chain of custody in digital evidence.
5. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010)
Citation: (2010) 5 SCC 600
๐ Facts:
Actress Khushboo faced multiple criminal complaints across Tamil Nadu for her remarks on premarital sex in a magazine interview, which were later widely circulated online and led to cyber abuse.
โ๏ธ Legal Issues:
Whether online backlash and defamation can be criminally prosecuted.
Abuse of process in filing multiple cases in different courts.
๐งโโ๏ธ Courtโs Verdict:
All criminal complaints quashed. Court held that public morality cannot be enforced by misuse of criminal law.
Emphasized freedom of speech and protection from judicial harassment.
๐ Significance:
Raised concerns about online abuse of women public figures and misuse of IPC provisions to silence opinion.
6. Ashok v. State (Delhi Cyber Crime Cell, 2020)
๐ Facts:
A Delhi-based woman was harassed through repeated spam emails and anonymous abusive messages. The accused used a VPN and spoofed email IDs.
โ๏ธ Legal Challenges:
Technical difficulty in identifying accused due to VPN and IP masking.
Lack of cooperation from international email service providers.
๐งโโ๏ธ Courtโs Verdict:
Recognized gaps in investigative capacity.
Emphasized international cooperation through MLAT (Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty).
Ordered framing of charges under Sections 354D IPC, 506 IPC (criminal intimidation), and 66A/66E IT Act (before Shreya Singhal ruling was revisited).
๐ Significance:
Exposed limitations of law enforcement in cross-border digital crimes and highlighted need for updated cybercrime infrastructure.
7. Rekha Sharma v. Union of India (Public Interest Litigation)
Citation: Delhi HC PIL on Online Harassment (2022)
๐ Facts:
Filed to address increasing cyberbullying of women journalists and activists, especially on Twitter and Instagram.
โ๏ธ Legal Issues:
Absence of specific legal framework for cyberbullying and online gender-based abuse.
Inefficiency of platforms in responding to complaints.
๐งโโ๏ธ Courtโs Verdict:
Directed the central government to frame guidelines and amend IT Rules to address online harassment.
Recommended establishing fast-track cybercrime cells and victim-friendly reporting mechanisms.
๐ Significance:
Marked a judicial acknowledgment of systemic failure in handling online harassment, especially gendered abuse.
๐ง Key Legal Challenges in Prosecuting Online Harassment & Cyberstalking
| Legal Challenge | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Anonymity of Offenders | Use of fake profiles, VPNs, and encryption hampers identification. |
| Jurisdiction Issues | Offenders may operate from different states/countries. |
| Lack of Platform Cooperation | Social media platforms are slow or unwilling to share user data. |
| Procedural Flaws in Evidence | Non-compliance with Section 65B makes digital evidence inadmissible. |
| Gender Bias & Victim Shaming | Victims, especially women, often face blame or social stigma. |
| Outdated Laws | Many provisions are insufficient to cover modern cyber offences. |
| Investigation Capacity | Police often lack technical expertise to handle cybercrime. |
๐ก๏ธ Relevant Legal Provisions (India)
| Law | Section | Description |
|---|---|---|
| IPC | 354D | Stalking (including online) |
| IPC | 509 | Words/acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman |
| IPC | 500โ506 | Defamation and criminal intimidation |
| IT Act | 66C | Identity theft |
| IT Act | 66E | Violation of privacy |
| IT Act | 67, 67A | Publishing obscene content online |
| CrPC | 154 | Mandatory FIR in cognizable offences including cyberstalking |
| Evidence Act | 65B | Admissibility of electronic records |
โ Conclusion
Prosecuting cyberstalking and online harassment presents unique legal and technical hurdles. However, Indian courts have started interpreting laws progressively to protect digital rights and dignity, especially of vulnerable groups like women and children.
Judicial reforms, updated legislation, international cooperation, and improved cybercrime training for police are critical to overcoming these challenges.
RELATED Blog
0 comments