Author: Ashok Kumar Ratan
BA LL.B (Hons.), Assam University
Introduction
In today’s digital world, being online is not just a part of life; it’s life itself. From academic discussions and job networking to personal expression, the internet is where much of our modern identity exists. But this openness comes at a cost: cyberbullying and online harassment are now everyday realities for many Indians, particularly women, students, and young social media users.
Surprisingly, India doesn’t yet have a clear, standalone law to deal with these problems. We rely on scattered, outdated sections of older laws that were never written with Instagram, WhatsApp, or Telegram in mind. As the internet evolves, so must our legal approach.
Understanding the Scope of the Problem
Cyberbullying involves persistent targeting, humiliation, threats, and sharing of personal content without consent. Victims, especially women, minors, and public personalities, often face deep psychological impacts, including anxiety, isolation, and trauma. Online harassment also extends into communal hatred, caste-based slurs, and digitally-enabled sexual abuse. What makes the matter worse is the relative ease with which abusers can act anonymously or via fake identities.
In Rini Johar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2020), the Supreme Court criticized the misuse of digital spaces by authorities in criminalizing online speech without due process. Although the case was not about cyberbullying per se, it highlighted the urgent need for balanced digital rights and safeguards in online communication.
Existing Legal Framework in India
Currently, there is no single, unified law that addresses cyberbullying or online harassment in India. Instead, victims and law enforcement must rely on a scattered set of provisions.
Under the Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 66E punishes violation of privacy by capturing or sharing private images without consent. Section 67 deals with the publication of obscene content in electronic form. However, both sections lack specificity regarding repeated harassment or psychological abuse.
The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, offers partial coverage through Section 354D
(stalking), Section 509 (word or gesture intended to insult the modesty of a woman), and Section 507 (criminal intimidation by anonymous communication). However, these provisions often require subjective interpretation and fail to grasp the complexities of online harassment.
In the case of Kalandi Charan Lenka v. State of Odisha (2017), the Orissa High Court dealt with a case where the accused created fake social media accounts to harass a woman. The Court acknowledged the emotional damage caused and emphasized the limitations of the IPC and IT Act in fully addressing such behavior. Despite the conviction, the judgment underscored the need for clearer legal language in such digital offenses.
The Human Impact
Cyberbullying and online harassment leave a lasting imprint. Victims often report emotional distress, fear of public life, and loss of academic or career opportunities. What makes these attacks worse is their permanence—digital abuse can be screenshotted, shared, and stored indefinitely. Moreover, the reluctance of victims to approach police, owing to social stigma or procedural delays, further limits access to justice.
A notable incident is the Bois Locker Room case (2020), where a group of Delhi schoolboys created an Instagram group to share obscene content and photos of underage girls without their consent. The event sparked national outrage and debates around online safety, privacy, and the need for digital literacy and legal reform. Although some juveniles were investigated under IPC and IT Act provisions, the case exposed how under-prepared Indian law is when it comes to adolescent digital abuse.
The Case for a Dedicated Law
There is a compelling need for comprehensive legislation that directly addresses cyberbullying and online harassment. Such a law must define what constitutes digital abuse including doxxing, cyberstalking, trolling, deepfakes, and non-consensual sharing of intimate content. It should provide victims with swift redressal mechanisms, anonymity protections, and access to psychological support.
In Vaishnavi S. v. Union of India (2022), the Madras High Court observed that harassment faced by women online is often treated with indifference. The Court recommended that the government consider more specific guidelines or laws to address evolving forms of digital abuse. While the ruling was advisory, it reinforces the judicial call for reform.
Comparative legal systems offer useful models. Australia’s Online Safety Act 2021 empowers a government commissioner to force platforms to take down abusive content within 24 hours. The United Kingdom’s Online Safety Bill, once passed, is expected to make tech companies legally responsible for harmful content shared on their platforms. India must consider a similar legislative roadmap that accounts for its social and digital realities.
Conclusion
Cyberbullying and online harassment are not mere digital annoyances — they are real threats to dignity, safety, and mental health. As technology deepens its reach, the law must evolve in tandem. A dedicated statute will not only close current legal gaps but also send a clear message: the internet is not a lawless zone. It is time India moved beyond piecemeal solutions and enacted a law that reflects the complexity of online behaviour and prioritises victimcentric justice.