CYBER STALKING, CYBER BULLYING

AND CYBER DEFAMATION

 Use of Computers in daily life

An integral part of every facet of human lives in the

present era of information and communication
technology.

2
 Opportunities for Misuse
More possibility of misuse of these
machines leading to computer-related
crimes.

3
 COMPUTER RELATED
CRIMES

Criminal activity Criminal activity

using computer that has
to commit an computer as a
offence target
4
 A total of 9,622 cases were reported in 2014 under the cyber-crimes
as compared to 5,693 cases registered during the previous year (i.e.
2013) which shows an increase of 69.0% over the previous year.

5
 Online abuse
Perpetrators use the cyberspace as a
platform for indulging in various criminal
activities against the users. The
Information Technology Act, 2000
(hereinafter known as IT Act, 2000) has
recognized various offences relating to
cyberspace.
 Cyber Harassment
Cyber harassment may be defined as a
repeated, unsolicited, hostile behaviour
by a person through cyberspace with the
intent to terrify, intimidate, humiliate,
threaten, harass or stalk someone else.
 Cyber Stalking
A repeated and unwanted harassing behaviour by a
person against another.
Such behaviour may be reflected by a physical act or
may be done through electronic means usually the
internet and other communication devices.
The act may cause mental trauma and fear to the
victim, sometimes leading to more serious offences.
The act is a direct intrusion into the privacy of an
individual, where the stalker attempts to establish
relationship with the victim without his/her consent.
 Cyber Stalking
It is a serious form of harassment on cyber
space posing threat to life of an individual if it
is not addressed appropriately.
A recent threat for the cyber community
irrespective of age or any other social strata
the users belong to.
Multiple cases go unreported either due to
lack of awareness or absence of stringent laws
to deal with them.
 Legal provisions relating to Cyber
Stalking
The offence of cyber stalking was not incorporated in
the IT Act when it came into force in 2000 unless the
act involved publication or transmission of obscene
material within the meaning of Section 67 of the IT Act.

Besides, Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code partially

deals with the offence according to which uttering of
any word, making of any sound or gesture or object to
be heard or seen by a woman, or intrusion upon the
privacy of such woman shall be punishable with
imprisonment up to three years and fine.
 Legal provisions relating to Cyber
Stalking
Since Section 509 of IPC defines this act as one
of privacy, Section 72 of IT Act was used to
deal with cases of cyber stalking to an extent.

Incorporation of Section 66A in 2008

amendment of IT Act - Punishment for
sending offensive messages through
communication service, etc.
 Legal provisions relating to Cyber
Stalking
Besides, e-mail communications amounting to
extortion may be dealt with under sections 43,
66, 66C of the IT Act 2000.
However, Section 66A was struck down by a the
Supreme Court of India (Shreya Singhal v. Union
of India decided on March 24, 2015) declaring it
to be in violation of the fundamental right to
freedom of speech and expression enshrined in
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
 Legal provisions relating to Cyber
Stalking
Even though Section 66A of IT Act has been
struck down from the statute book, stalking
has finally come to be recognised as an
offence under the IPC.
The offence of cyber stalking is now a part of
Section 354D (Stalking) of IPC, if not a
complete protection to the offence. This
provision was inserted by the Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act, 2013.
 Section 354D
, Any man who
(i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts
to contact such woman to foster personal
interaction repeatedly despite a clear
indication of disinterest by such woman; or
(ii) monitors the use by a woman of the
internet, email or any other form of
electronic communication, commits the
offence of stalking:
 Gap in law
Besides, the purpose of Section 354D is to
prosecute a man for stalking a woman under
circumstances described in the provision.
Under such circumstances, for other cases of
cyber stalking, Section 506 (Criminal
Intimidation) of IPC may also be invoked when
such communications involve threat to life,
injury etc.
 Gap in law
Therefore, in the absence of Section 66A,
the IT Act needs to be amended to take
into account cyber stalking as a
substantive offence, which is one of the
most under-reported offences in the
present scenario.
 CYBER BULLYING
Cyber bullying is another form of use of
technology to harass, threaten or target
individuals, especially occurring among youth in
the cyber space.
According to a study conducted in 25 countries by
Microsoft, titled Global Youth Online Behavior
Survey, India ranked third with 53 per cent of
respondents (children aged between 8 -17)
saying they have been bullied online, behind
China (70 per cent) and Singapore (58 per cent).
 CYBER BULLYING
Sending unpleasant text messages, e-mails, and
instant chat messages
Forwarding confidential e-mails, text messages,
or instant chat messages to any other person;
Creating a derogatory online profile about a
student and inviting others to comment; or
Taking videos/photographs against the will of a
person and posting the same on public domain to
embarrass him or her.
 Legal provisions relating to Cyber
Bullying
The IT Act refers to offences such as publishing
information which is obscene (section 67),
sexually explicit material (section 67A), child
pornography (section 67B) and breach of
confidentiality and privacy (section 72).
On a broader perspective, these provisions
may protect cases of cyber bullying and cyber
defamation to an extent.
 Cases on Cyber Bullying

University of Kerala vs. Council of Principals of

college in Kerala and others
Supreme Court of India referred to the
Raghavan Committee report which had
highlighted the need for preventing the
practice of ragging, which is also a kind of
bullying in educational institutions.
University of Kerala vs. Council of Principals of
college in Kerala and others

The Committee referred to the act of ragging

as a form of systematic and sustained
physical, mental and sexual abuse of fresh
students at the college/university/any other
educational institution at the hands of senior
students of the same institution and
sometimes even by outsiders.
University of Kerala vs. Council of Principals of
college in Kerala and others

Such interpretation could incorporate

acts of cyber bullying taking place
amongst young students resulting in
immediate disciplinary action against the
student/s concerned and inform the
police for setting criminal law into
motion.
 Obstacles
The IT Act, 2000 is silent about any penal
provision or prevention of acts of cyber
bullying by students.

The only two relevant provisions under the

Act are publication of obscene materials
(Section 67) and breach of confidentiality and
privacy (Section 72).
 Obstacles
As far as use of mobile phones is concerned,
there is no bar on the age of the users.
Subsequently, a huge number of mobile
phone users are below the age of eighteen
years who end up sending offensive messages
to their fellow school mates out of fun, and
there is no regulation on them. In other
words, most of the time, they do not come
within the purview of the existing laws, be it
the IT Act or the Indian Penal Code.
 Obstacles
There are no uniform regulations for schools
preventing bullying, especially cyber bullying like
the statutes on anti-ragging prevalent in many
states in India.
The provisions of the new Juvenile Justice Act do
not address the issue of cyber bullying. At the
same time, the cyber cafes need to have stricter
regulations to curb misuse of internet use such as
cyber pornography and child abuse.
 Obstacles
Schools and educational authorities may
set up educational programs to alert for
cyber bullying, inform about its potential
damage and thus prevent incidents of
cyber bullying.
The IT Act does not mention any specific
provision for safeguarding the children.
CYBER DEFAMATION
 Cyber Defamation
a) Making or publishing any imputation concerning
any person.
b) Such imputation must have been made by
- words either spoken or intended to be read or,
- signs or
- visible representation
- Such imputation must be made with the intention
of harming or with the knowledge, or with reason to
believe that it will harm the reputation of that
person.
 Cyber Defamation
Cyber defamation means publishing of
defamatory material against another person
with the help of computers or internet. If
someone publishes some defamatory
statement about another person on a
website/ social networking sites or send
emails containing defamatory material to
other persons with the intention to harm or
lower the reputation of the person would
amount to cyber defamation.
 Legal provisions relating to Cyber
Defamation
Section 499 of IPC:
Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be
read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or
publishes any imputation concerning any person
intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to
believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation
of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter
excepted, to defame that person.
The offence of defamation is punishable under Section
500 of IPC with a simple imprisonment up to 2 years or
fine or both.
 Online harassment by Harvard PhD
scholar
In 2013, a Harvard PhD scholar was imprisoned for online
harassment campaign in order to defame and degrade the
works of prominent Dead Sea Scrolls scholars, thereby,
protecting the works of his father who is also a Dead Sea
Scrolls scholar. To attract more support for his fathers
views, he devoted years creating anonymous online
identities and content emails, blogs, articles and
numerous online comments to malign the reputations
and findings of more prominent Dead Sea Scrolls experts.
An FBI investigation led to findings of 51 charges of identity
theft, aggravated harassment, criminal impersonation and
forgery. The investigating agency used simple software that
identified the IP addresses and traced the e-mails and blog
posts of 82 aliases to the same few computers.
SMC Pneumatics (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Jogesh
Kwatra
SMC Pneumatics (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Jogesh Kwatra, a Court
of Delhi assumed jurisdiction over a matter where a
corporates reputation was being defamed through emails
and passed an important ex-parte injunction. Consequently,
the Delhi High Court restrained the defendant from sending
derogatory, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, humiliating and
abusive emails either to the plaintiffs or to its sister
subsidiaries all over the world including their Managing
Directors and their Sales and Marketing departments.
Further, Hon'ble Judge also restrained the defendant from
publishing, transmitting or causing to be published any
information in the actual world as also in cyberspace which
is derogatory or defamatory or abusive of the plaintiffs.
CS(OS) No. 1279/2001 (Delhi High Court, 2001)
 State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti
Related to posting of obscene, defamatory and
annoying message about a divorcee woman in
the yahoo message group. E-Mails were also
forwarded to the victim for information by the
accused through a false e-mail account opened
by him in the name of the victim resulting in
annoying phone calls to the lady in the belief that
she was soliciting. Based on a complaint made by
the victim in February 2004, the Police traced the
accused to Mumbai and arrested him within a
short span of time.
 State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti
Relying on the expert witnesses and other evidence
produced before it, including the witnesses of the Cyber
Cafe owners, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
found the accused guilty of offences under Section 469
(Forgery for purpose of harming reputation), Section 509
IPC and Section 67 of IT Act 2000. He was sentenced to
rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under Section 469 IPC
and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, one year simple
imprisonment and Rs. 500 fine under Section 509 IPC
(Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a
woman) and two years imprisonment with a fine of Rs
4,000 under section 67 of IT Act 2000. The case resolved in
a quick span of seven months set a benchmark for the
judiciary and encouraged victims online harassment.
 Google India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Visaka
Industries Limited
The complainant in this case was engaged in business of
manufacturing and selling of Asbestos cement sheets and
allied products. Certain defamatory articles were published
by one Gopala Krishna against the complainant and other
politicians. Since the online forum was hosted by Google,
the question before the High Court was to decide as to
whether Google could claim any exemption under Section
79 of the IT Act. Referring to subsection (1) and (2) of
Section 79, the Court held that since Google did not make
any effort to block the defamatory content, they couldnt
claim any exemption under the said provision.
Criminal Petition No. 7207 of 2009 before the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh