Author: SANIYA SAYYED
NEW LAW COLLEGE, BHARATI VIDYAPEETH UNIVERSITY, PUNE
To the Point
Cyberbullying refers to bullying that takes place through electronic devices like mobile phones, computers, and tablets. It can occur through various digital means such as messaging apps, social networking sites, online forums, or gaming platforms where users can view, interact with, or share content. The primary forms include sending threatening messages, spreading rumors online, impersonating someone to defame, posting humiliating content or images, and online stalking. Victims often experience emotional distress, depression, anxiety, and in severe cases, suicidal thoughts. The psychological damage caused by cyberbullying is often amplified because the bullying can take place 24/7 and can be seen by a vast audience.
In India, cyberbullying has emerged as a serious concern due to the country’s rapidly expanding digital footprint. As of 2023, India had over 850 million internet users, making it a fertile ground for online crimes. Children and adolescents, in particular, are vulnerable, with multiple reports indicating a surge in bullying cases through social media platforms like Instagram, WhatsApp, and Facebook. However, despite the alarming rise in incidents, the absence of a dedicated law addressing cyberbullying makes redressal difficult and inconsistent. Victims must often rely on general provisions under the IT Act and BNS, which may not be adequate in every scenario.
Use of Legal Jargon
Understanding cyberbullying within the framework of criminal law requires familiarity with certain foundational legal concepts. One of the most critical is “mens rea”, a Latin term meaning “guilty mind.” It refers to the mental element or intention behind committing a crime. In traditional criminal law, both mens rea and actus reus (the guilty act) must be established to hold someone criminally liable. In cyber offences, proving mens rea becomes more complex because perpetrators often hide behind pseudonyms or use encrypted platforms, making it harder to determine malicious intent or premeditation.
On the other hand, “actus reus” refers to the external or physical act of a crime. In the case of cyberbullying, actus reus may include sending abusive or threatening emails, sharing personal or obscene photos without consent, impersonating someone to defame them online, or persistently sending harassing messages through social media or messaging platforms.
Another crucial term in cyber law is “electronic evidence.” Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, electronic evidence is categorized as “electronic records”, which include digital data such as emails, social media chats, audio-video recordings, browser history, call logs, and metadata.These are defined under Clause (d) of Section 2 and Section 61 of the BSA. For such evidence to be admissible in a court of law, it must comply with the requirements laid out in Section 63 of the BSA, which corresponds to the earlier Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. This section mandates the production of a certificate that identifies the electronic device from which the data was obtained, affirms the integrity and authenticity of the contents, and confirms that the information was generated or stored during the regular operation of the system. The certificate must be signed by a person in a responsible position who has lawful control over the relevant computer system or device. Without such a certificate, electronic evidence is generally inadmissible unless exceptional conditions are established.
The issue of jurisdiction in cyber offences is particularly significant. Since cyberbullying can occur across multiple geographies simultaneously, determining the place of offence becomes challenging. For instance, a person in Delhi could send threatening messages to someone in Mumbai using servers located outside India. In such scenarios, the law must determine whether territorial jurisdiction lies with the location of the victim, the accused, or where the server is hosted. Indian courts, as per various judicial precedents, have accepted that jurisdiction can lie where the effect of the offence is felt, but this remains an evolving area.
Additionally, “anonymity”, although not a traditional legal term, is highly relevant in cyberbullying cases. It refers to the ability of users to mask their identities, making it difficult for authorities to trace the source of harmful communication. This creates an obstacle in both investigation and enforcement, leading to a need for stronger digital tracing mechanisms and international cooperation for cross-border data sharing.
The Proof: Relevant Facts, Authorities, and Statutory Provisions
India does not have a specific statute exclusively addressing cyberbullying, but several legislative instruments provide partial remedies. The primary law remains the Information Technology Act, 2000, which governs cyber crimes and electronic commerce.
Under the Information Technology Act, 2000:
Section 66C penalizes identity theft, which is highly relevant in cyberbullying cases where perpetrators use the victim’s photos, names, or personal details to create fake accounts or manipulate content.
Section 66D makes impersonation through a computer resource an offense in situations where bullies are deceiving or cheating others with false online profiles or fictitious digital information.
Section 67 deals with publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form and is often invoked in instances of revenge porn, non-consensual photo sharing, or sexually explicit messages circulated to shame the victim.
Each of these sections carries varying penalties, including imprisonment of up to three years and fines, depending on the severity of the offence.
Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS):
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 has replaced the Indian Penal Code from 1st July 2024. Many earlier IPC sections used in cyberbullying cases have been reorganized under the BNS. Below is a list of pertinent provisions currently in force:
Section 74 of BNS (corresponding to old IPC Section 354D) criminalizes stalking, including online stalking. It applies when someone repeatedly contacts a person electronically, follows them virtually, or monitors their digital activity despite clear disinterest.
Section 356 of BNS (earlier IPC Sections 499–500) pertains to criminal defamation, which is relevant in cases where cyberbullies spread false information online to damage a person’s reputation.
Section 351(3) of BNS (replacing IPC Section 507) penalizes criminal intimidation through anonymous communication, including emails or fake accounts threatening the victim’s safety, reputation, or privacy.
Section 352 of BNS (updated from IPC Section 509) penalizes any word, gesture, or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman, which can include vulgar comments or obscene messages sent via chat platforms or social media.
Special Laws: POCSO Act, 2012
In cases where the victim is a minor, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 provides stricter penalties.
Section 11 defines sexual harassment, including online actions such as making sexual remarks or requesting sexual content from a minor.
Section 12 prescribes punishment for such acts, including imprisonment up to three years and fines. The Act is particularly relevant in cases involving online grooming, where perpetrators build emotional connections with minors for exploitative purposes.
Online Grievance Redress Mechanisms:
The National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (https://www.cybercrime.gov.in), launched by the Ministry of Home Affairs, offers a centralized platform to file complaints related to cyber offences. It enables users to lodge complaints under the categories of cyberbullying, online harassment, child pornography, and cyberstalking, among others. It also categorizes complaints based on whether they involve financial fraud, personal threats, or sexually explicit content.
However, the effectiveness of these laws and portals largely depends on their implementation. Delays in investigation, lack of trained cyber forensic experts, and poor awareness among victims remain significant challenges. There is a pressing need for greater digital literacy, improved police responsiveness, and inclusion of cyber law education in school curricula.
Abstract
The increasing reliance on the internet and digital communication platforms has transformed the way people interact, but it has also given rise to new forms of abuse—one of the most concerning being cyberbullying. Unlike traditional bullying, cyberbullying operates in the digital realm, often marked by anonymity, rapid sharing, and a lasting online presence. It involves the use of electronic devices and platforms to intimidate, harass, or demean others, with teenagers, women, and vulnerable groups being particularly at risk. Although cyberbullying has become a widespread issue, Indian legislation does not yet recognize it as a standalone offence. Instead, it is addressed through a combination of legal provisions found in the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This article seeks to explore the concept of cyberbullying, evaluate the existing legal mechanisms dealing with it, review significant judicial decisions, and propose necessary legal and policy reforms to more effectively address this growing online menace.
Case Laws
The Indian judiciary has played a significant role in interpreting existing laws to provide relief in cyberbullying cases. One of the most important judgments in the context of cyberbullying is Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1. In this case, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, which had previously criminalized sending “offensive messages” online. The Court held that the section was unconstitutional as it violated Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution (freedom of speech and expression) and failed the test of reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). While the judgment was a victory for free speech, it left a void in laws that previously addressed online abuse and threats, thus inadvertently affecting cyberbullying redress.
In this landmark case, State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti, Suhas Katti was convicted for cyber harassment of a woman by posting obscene and defamatory content about her in online forums after she rejected his marriage proposal. He used fake identities and shared her contact details, resulting in lewd calls and reputational harm.He was charged under: Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 penalizes any individual who publishes or circulates obscene content via electronic platforms. Likewise, Section 469 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 addresses the offense of forgery when it is committed with the intent to tarnish someone’s reputation, including cases involving digital communications. Additionally, Section 509 of the IPC is aimed at punishing anyone who uses words, gestures, or any act intended to violate the dignity or modesty of a woman. Though these provisions were not crafted specifically to address cyberbullying, they are commonly applied in cases involving online abuse and harassment.
The court found him guilty and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment and fines under all three sections. It was one of India’s first cybercrime convictions, setting a precedent for legal action against online abuse and cyberbullying.
In Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569, though not directly related to cyberbullying, the Supreme Court discussed the concept of reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech, reinforcing the idea that expression which incites violence or hatred is not protected under the Constitution. The case serves as a doctrinal foundation for interpreting cyberbullying within the framework of hate speech and intimidation.
Conclusion
Cyberbullying is an increasingly prevalent issue in India’s digital landscape, posing psychological, social, and legal challenges. While existing laws offer fragmented protection, the absence of a specific and comprehensive legal framework leaves victims vulnerable and often without effective recourse. The current legislative approach tends to address symptoms rather than the problem itself. It is imperative for lawmakers to acknowledge cyberbullying as a distinct offence and introduce targeted legislation that clearly defines the term, prescribes punishment, and lays out procedures for redressal.
Additionally, awareness campaigns must be launched across schools, colleges, and public platforms to sensitize individuals about the implications of cyberbullying and encourage responsible digital behavior. Law enforcement agencies must also be trained to handle cyber complaints efficiently, ensuring that investigations are conducted without delay. A dedicated cyberbullying law, coupled with education and enforcement, will significantly enhance India’s capacity to tackle this modern menace.
FAQS
Q1. What is cyberbullying?
Cyberbullying is the use of digital platforms such as social media, messaging apps, forums, or emails to harass, threaten, humiliate, or defame someone. It includes acts like online stalking, sending obscene messages, spreading false information, or impersonating someone to cause harm.
Q2. Is cyberbullying a punishable offence in India?
Yes, although the term “cyberbullying” is not specifically defined in Indian law, various acts of cyberbullying are punishable under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, such as publishing obscene content, online stalking, identity theft, and criminal intimidation.
Q3. Can minors be held liable for cyberbullying?
Yes. If a minor commits cyberbullying, they can be prosecuted under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The focus is on reformative measures, though serious offences may involve stricter consequences depending on the circumstances.
Q4. How can a victim report cyberbullying in India?
Victims can:
File a complaint at the nearest cybercrime cell or police station.
Lodge an online complaint via the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal: www.cybercrime.gov.in
Provide relevant screenshots, URLs, emails, or messages as evidence.
Q5. Can someone be punished for creating fake social media profiles or impersonating others?
Yes. Under Section 66C and 66D of the IT Act, identity theft and online impersonation are criminal offences, punishable by imprisonment and fines.
