Online Harassment, Identity Theft, And Digital Abuse Cases
🧾 Understanding Online Harassment, Identity Theft, and Digital Abuse
Definitions
Online Harassment:
Intentional use of digital platforms to threaten, intimidate, or harm another person.
Includes cyberstalking, trolling, and spreading defamatory content online.
Identity Theft:
Unauthorized use of someone’s personal information (like banking, social media, or government credentials) to commit fraud.
Digital Abuse:
Broader category encompassing harassment, defamation, non-consensual sharing of intimate images, cyberbullying, and online exploitation.
Legal Framework in India
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860
Section 66C, IT Act, 2000: Identity theft and fraud via digital means.
Section 66E, IT Act: Violation of privacy (non-consensual sharing of private images).
Section 507 IPC: Criminal intimidation by electronic means.
Section 499/500 IPC: Online defamation.
Information Technology Act, 2000
Sections 43, 66, 66C, 66D: Digital fraud, hacking, phishing, identity theft.
Section 67, 67A, 67B: Publishing obscene or sexually explicit material online.
Protection of Women from Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act, 2013
Covers digital abuse in workplace or employment contexts.
Supreme Court & High Court Guidelines
Courts have issued directions for fast-tracking cybercrime cases, blocking offensive content, and victim compensation.
⚖️ Landmark Case Laws (Detailed)
1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) – Online Free Speech and Harassment
Facts:
Challenge to Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalized “offensive” messages online.
Many individuals were arrested for posting online opinions or criticism.
Legal Issues:
Whether restrictions violated freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a).
Balancing online regulation and protection from harassment.
Judgment:
Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional.
Emphasized that online harassment must be specifically defined to avoid arbitrary prosecution.
Significance:
Landmark case safeguarding freedom of expression online while emphasizing narrowly targeted measures for harassment.
2. State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti (2004) – Cyberstalking and Obscene Communication
Facts:
Accused created fake email IDs to harass and defame a woman.
Published private and false information about her online.
Legal Issues:
Liability under IPC 500, 507 and IT Act Section 66.
Judgment:
Accused convicted for criminal intimidation, defamation, and identity fraud online.
Significance:
First case in India dealing with email-based harassment.
Established that online harassment has same legal consequences as offline harassment.
3. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) – Non-Consensual Digital Content
Facts:
Private videos were uploaded online without consent.
Victim sought removal and prosecution under IT Act.
Legal Issues:
Whether non-consensual sharing violates privacy and constitutes an offense.
Judgment:
Supreme Court clarified that IT Act provisions criminalize unauthorized sharing of private material.
Courts directed removal of content and compensation for mental trauma.
Significance:
Strengthened legal framework against digital abuse and privacy violations.
4. Avnish Bajaj v. State (2004) – Ecommerce and Online Defamation
Facts:
Owner of an online marketplace (bazee.com) was accused of hosting offensive content uploaded by a third party.
Legal Issues:
Whether intermediaries are liable for user-generated content.
Judgment:
Initially convicted, but later acquitted after IT (Amendment) Act, 2008 introduced safe harbor provisions for intermediaries, unless they fail to remove offensive content after notice.
Significance:
Defined liability of digital intermediaries in cases of online harassment and abuse.
5. Arushi Jain v. Union of India (2019) – Online Identity Theft
Facts:
Accused created fake social media profiles to defame and harass the victim, also committing financial fraud.
Legal Issues:
Application of IT Act Sections 66C (identity theft) and 66D (cheating).
Judgment:
Court convicted the accused for identity theft, fraud, and harassment.
Ordered victim compensation and permanent blocking of fake profiles.
Significance:
Established that digital identity theft is a punishable offense with consequences under IPC and IT Act.
6. Disha Ravi Case (2021) – Online Activism and Digital Abuse Concerns
Facts:
Accused shared digital content online allegedly supporting protest movements.
Legal Issues:
Balance between freedom of expression online and state claims of anti-national activity.
Judgment:
Supreme Court emphasized proportionality, preventive custody only under strict scrutiny, and protection from harassment via online activism laws.
Significance:
Shows tension between digital regulation and human rights.
7. International Case: FTC v. Identity Theft Network (USA, 2015)
Facts:
Large-scale phishing scam targeting online identities of US citizens.
Judgment:
Court imposed fines and jail terms for digital identity theft and online fraud.
Significance:
Shows global legal recognition of identity theft as a serious cybercrime.
🧠 Key Takeaways
Legal Recognition of Digital Abuse: Courts treat online harassment, identity theft, and cyberstalking as serious crimes under IPC and IT Act.
Victim Protection: Compensation, content removal, and witness protection are crucial remedies.
Intermediary Liability: Platforms must act upon notice or face legal consequences.
Privacy and Consent: Non-consensual sharing of content is criminalized.
Balance with Freedom of Expression: Shreya Singhal ensures protection of speech while targeting harassment specifically.
Proactive Law Enforcement: Fast-tracking cybercrime cases is key to addressing digital abuse.
RELATED Blog
0 comments