Author: Khushi Pursnani, Subodh Law College, Jaipur
To the Point
Cyberbullying among minors is a serious and increasing problem in India. While laws exist to punish offenders, much less clarity exists on whether schools— as institutions responsible for children during much of their formative years— should be legally accountable for preventing or responding to cyberbullying. This article examines (1) the existing legal framework relating to cyberbullying and minors; (2) whether schools already have duties and potential liability under law; (3) arguments for and against imposing stronger legal accountability on schools; (4) case law and precedents; and (5) suggestions for reform.
Abstract
Cyberbullying has emerged as a pervasive threat to children in India, facilitated by widespread internet access, social media, and digital technologies. While constitutional protections, criminal law statutes (such as the IT Act, IPC, and POCSO) criminalise many forms of cyber harassment, defamation, privacy violations etc., these laws focus primarily on penalising offenders. There is a lacuna in the legal framework regarding obligations on schools to prevent, monitor, intervene in or remediate cyberbullying among their students. Given that children spend significant time in educational institutions and that schools are meant to foster safe environments, there is a strong normative argument that they bear certain duties of care. This article analyses the pertinent legal provisions, reviews case law, assesses arguments for and against legal accountability of schools, and finally offers recommendations for legal reform and policy changes to ensure institutions are part of the solution rather than passive bystanders.
Use of Legal Jargon
Duty of Care: A legal obligation imposed on certain entities (here, schools) to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety and welfare of those under their charge (students), including protection from cyberbullying.
Negligence: A failure to exercise the standard of care which a reasonably prudent person (or institution) would have exercised under similar circumstances, resulting in harm to another.
Statutory Compliance: Adherence to laws and regulations enacted by Parliament or state legislatures (for example, IT Act, IPC, POCSO etc.).
Vicarious Liability: Liability of an institution for wrongful acts committed by its agents/employees, provided those acts are within the scope of their employment or authority.
Intermediary Liability: Rules governing when service providers or platforms are responsible for user-generated content.
Remedial Measures / Grievance Redressal Mechanism: Processes or procedures set up to remedy or respond to wrongdoing once reported.
The Proof (Existing Data & Legal Provisions)
Prevalence and Impact
According to a narrative review, cybercrimes reported in India increased significantly from 2018 to 2020, with 50,035 cases reported in 2020. Among those were cyberbullying-adjacent offenses—cyberstalking, blackmail, defamation, fake profiling etc. PMC+1
The same review finds that contributing factors include low digital literacy, lack of awareness among parents, teachers and students, and absence of robust institutional mechanisms. PMC+1
Legal Provisions in India Related to Cyberbullying
Several statutes address components of cyberbullying, though none are expressly titled “school responsibility for cyberbullying”.
Information Technology Act, 2000 (with amendments)
• Section 66E: Penalises violation of privacy, such as capturing, publishing or transmitting intimate images without consent.
• Section 67: Concerns publishing or transmitting obscene/vulgar content through electronic means. • Section 66(D): impersonation via computer resource or using computing resources to defame or mislead.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
• Section 500: Defamation.
• Section 507: Criminal intimidation by anonymous communication.
• Sections 354C / 354D: Relating to voyeurism or stalking of women via electronic means; might sometimes overlap where minors are involved.
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO)
When cyberbullying involves sexual abuse, sexual content, or exploitation of minors, POCSO becomes relevant. The Act criminalises sexual offences against children, whether physical or via electronic communication.
Government / Institutional Initiatives
Awareness campaigns, helplines, portals like the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, e-portals for protection of child rights etc.
Studies show that many higher education institutions do not have clear anti-cyberbullying policies, many students are unaware where to report, or whether policies exist.
Case Laws
Below are landmark and relevant cases in India (and comparative jurisdictions) touching upon aspects relevant to holding schools accountable or illustrating legal treatment of cyberbullying-like behavior.
Suhas Katti v. State of Tamil Nadu (2004)
Facts: A man (Suhas Katti) sent harassing emails, defamatory content, impersonated the victim via fake email, etc.
Legal significance: Convicted under IT Act (Section 67) and IPC (Sections including 509, 469). This shows that cyber harassment and defamation via electronic means are actionable. However, this case did not involve a school or education institution being held liable.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Facts: Constitutional challenge against Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalised sending “offensive messages” etc.
Holding: Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional for being vague, overbroad, violating freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a).
Relevance: This shows limits of what legal provisions can do; it also demonstrates how cyberlaw has to balance protection vs constitutional freedoms.
Other Relevant Case/Statutory Precedents
No reported case in India (so far) where a school has been held legally accountable per se for cyberbullying among students under the school’s watch or for failing to prevent cyberbullying.
The Ragging regulation under UGC is a kind of analogous institutional responsibility for colleges/universities, but ragging is distinct and more about physical and verbal harassment in higher education.
Comparative Jurisdictions (brief)
In the UK, for example, schools have statutory obligations: under the Education and Inspections Act 2006, schools must provide a safe environment and have anti‐bullying policies, including for cyberbullying.
Conclusion
While legal frameworks in India (IT Act, IPC, POCSO etc.) criminalise many components of cyberbullying, there is currently no clear legal precedent or statute making schools per se legally accountable for cyberbullying of students. However, both normative and comparative legal analysis suggest that holding schools to some degree of accountability is justifiable. To do so safely and fairly, there is a need for specific legislative reform that defines:
the scope of a school’s duty of care vis-à-vis cyberbullying (on-campus, off-campus, during school hours or not);
clear policy mandates requiring schools to adopt anti-cyberbullying policies, grievance redressal mechanisms, awareness training, etc.;
safeguards for free speech, privacy, procedural fairness for students;
proportional liability (for example, liability in negligence rather than strict liability), so that schools are responsible for lapses, not inevitable or uncontrollable acts.
Given the severity of psychological harm, increasing prevalence, and role schools can play, India should consider statutory or regulatory reforms so that school accountability becomes part of the solution. Without such clarity, children may be left vulnerable, and schools may inadvertently remain passive bystanders.
FAQS
Q1. Is there any existing law in India that explicitly holds schools responsible for cyberbullying among students?
A1. No, as of now, there is no specific law (statute or judicial precedent) that explicitly holds schools legally accountable for cyberbullying incidents among their students. The statutes criminalise the acts of cyberbullying (e.g. defamation, obscene content, privacy violations) but do not impose obligations on schools to prevent or remedy those acts.
Q2. Can a victim sue a school for negligence if cyberbullying causes harm?
A2. Possibly, yes, under tort principles of negligence if it is proved that: the school owed a duty of care; that duty was breached (e.g. school failed to respond appropriately after becoming aware); the breach caused foreseeable harm; and the claimant suffered damage. But courts have not yet clearly accepted this in the cyberbullying context in India.
Q3. What legal provisions are used currently for cyberbullying cases?
A3. Key legal provisions include sections under the Information Technology Act (e.g. Sections 66E, 67, impersonation / privacy breach provisions), and under the IPC (defamation, criminal intimidation). If sexual content is involved, POCSO may also be used.
Q4. How might legal accountability for schools be implemented?
A4. Through legislation or regulation specifically recognizing schools’ obligations: mandate anti-cyberbullying policies, grievance redressal; require reporting requirements; inspection or oversight by education authorities; perhaps civil liability for serious failures in protection or response.
Q5. What are the challenges in holding schools accountable?
A5. Some major challenges are: distinguishing acts within school control vs outside; balancing student free speech vs harassment; resource constraints; proof of knowledge / foreseeability; possible resistance from schools; ensuring protection of minors’ rights during proceedings.
