“Cybersecurity is a continuous cycle of protection, detection, response, and recovery.” – Chris Painter
ABSTRACT
The internet has become synonymous with daily life, but its expansion has been accompanied by a disturbing increase in online stalking, harassment, and e-violence. Such activities manifest themselves in various forms like cyberstalking, bullying, dissemination of abusive content, identity theft and circulation of morphed pictures, all of which leave deep psychological and emotional scars on victims. Unlike physical stalking, cyberstalking allows offenders to hide behind anonymity which makes it more difficult to trace or stop them. India has made efforts to counter such activities through laws such as the “Information Technology Act, 2000 (amended in 2008) and the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013” that added anti stalking provisions. The Ritu Kohli cyberstalking case and Suhas Katti v. State of Tamil Nadu were landmark judgments pointing towards the imperative need for more robust legal protection. Certain challenges persist due to cross border jurisdiction, abuse of anonymity and enforcement loopholes. Cyberstalking is not confined to the virtual world. It has very tangible implications for mental wellbeing, personal integrity, and safety. Tougher laws, sensitivity, and prudent digital etiquette are key to making the world wide web safe and considerate for all.
Key Words: Online harassment, internet, cyber stalking, virtual world, safety, social media.
INTRODUCTION
Today, Internet has become an essential part of modern lifestyle by providing a medium for communication around the world including communication, education, and social networking. Millions of people on are engaged on internet daily thus, making it easier for people to connect, communicate and abuse each other behind the screen. According to Internet World Stats Report, 2013 revealed that 137,000,000 people used Internet, and 56,698,300 people used Facebook in India, which led to rising concern for Internet safety. The rise in Internet usage has also affected the number of cases of online harassment and cyber stalking. The term Cyber violence denotes the exploitation of modern tools (specifically the web and digital devices) to cause fear orintimidation. It is done in many forms such as online stalking, cyber-bullying, digital harassment, digital violence and circulation of sexually explicit content. It also involves the application of technology to commit more forms of crime such as hacking of people’s account and stealing their confidential data or use of social media to organise bodily harm. At its core, cyber violence is a technology-driven crime that relies on computer networks. With the growing dependence on digital spaces in daily life, this form of abuse has become one of the most pressing challenges of our time.
The history of digital harassment can be traced back form the time of 1990s, when there was rise of Internet with the early instances of cyberstalking and cyber harassment through Internet, such as the Ritu Kohli cyberstalking case in India (2001). California was the first state to criminalise cyber stalking after Gary Dellapenta case in the year 1999 for false online advertisements to aid sexual assault. U.S. Attorney was the first person to provide official definition of cyber stalking in 1999. Well known teen suicide cases linked to online bullying, such as the Megan Meier case (2006) in the U.S., forced them to pass anti-harassment legislations and activism groups in the mid-2000s, compromising state-level anti-cyberbullying laws and the Tyler Clementi legislation. The Council of Europe has also discussed about the issue, with great emphasises on cyber violence against women.
Digital violence is neither a new concept nor it has a specific starting point, but it arose with the rapid spread of internet and communication devices during the period of late 20th and early 21st centuries. The initial forms consist of media violence and the psychological effects of electronic material, digital violence took the form of harassment, stalking and abuse with the advancement of recent technologies. Cyber bowling and online harassment became public concerns in the late 1990s and early 2000. Recently the COVID – 19 pandemic, leads to surge in the cases of digital violence as the life moved online.
MEANING
The word stalking refers to harassment of one person by the other person. As per the Oxford dictionary stalking is “pursuing stealthily”. In practice, it may involve following someone, reaching at their home or workplace, making constant phone calls, or leaving unwanted notes or gifts.Sometimes even minor actions, such as sending letters or flowers, or repeatedly trying to start conversations in public places, can make a person feel uncomfortable and harassed when they happen again and again. Cyber stalking is an online version of physical stalking and can be divided into two parts:
a) Cyber stalking which happens on internet and includesrepeatedly threatening of victim, sending harassing email or posting morphed images of the victim on pornographic websites, identity theft, and damage to data or equipment.
b) Cyber stalking, which starts online and then extends to the real-world, the offender gets access of victim’s personal information, and then constantly follows the victim. The offender may also engage in malice acts such as issuing that threats and inflicting physical harm to the victim.
• Physical Stalking v. Cyber Stalking: Before looking at how cyberstalking differs from physical stalking, it is important to understand what physical stalking means. Physical stalking involves actions carried out to harass or intimidate a victim, such as following them or intruding into their personal space. The key differences between physical and cyberstalking can be outlined as follows-
|
In traditional stalking, the stalker is usually near the victim and may even confront them directly. This includes physical confrontation. |
In contrast, cyberstalking does not depend on physical presence, as the stalker can target the victim from a distance without any face-to-face encounter. This does not require physical confrontation. |
|
|
Familiarity with the victim |
In most instances of cyberstalking, the victim is already known to the stalker. The stalker may be a relative, a neighbour, a colleague, or even a celebrity with whom the offender has developed an unhealthy obsession. Familiarity often gives the stalker access to personal details, which are later misused for harassment. Such cases demonstrate how cyberstalking frequently arises out of prior acquaintance or perceived personal connection, making the victim more vulnerable to targeted abuse. |
In some cases, the victim is not personally known to the stalker but is chosen casually, often through social media platforms. Here, the stalker’s knowledge of the victim is limited only to the information publicly available online. The harassment usually begins with the misuse of personal details, photographs, or posts that are accessible on the victim’s profile, showing how even limited exposure on digital platforms can make individuals vulnerable to cyberstalking. |
|
In some cases, the stalker’s identity is known to the victim, leaving no anonymity. This makes the harassment more direct and personal, increasing the victim’s fear and discomfort. |
In such cases, the stalker maintains a high level of anonymity by hiding their true identity in the virtual world. This makes it difficult for the victim to recognise or trace the offender, increasing the intensity of fear and uncertainty. |
|
|
In some instances, cyberstalking goes beyond the virtual space, leading to personal or physical interaction between the stalker and the victim. This escalates the threat, as online harassment is coupled with direct confrontation in real life. |
In these cases, the stalker does not confront the victim physically and instead operates entirely online, choosing how to act or present themselves in the virtual world. |
|
|
A stalker may monitor the victim’s daily activities, creating a high risk of potential harm or crime being committed against the victim. |
In such cases, the stalker is restricted to viewing the victim’s online activities and available profile details, making the risk lower than that of physical stalking. |
|
|
In physical stalking, the victim can more easily recognise and understand the stalker’s intentions. |
In cyberstalking, the victim often finds it difficult to discern the stalker’s true intentions, as online interactions can be easily misinterpreted. |
Several psychological factors can drive an individual to engage in stalking behaviour. These may include narcissistic tendencies, feelings of anger, revenge, jealousy, obsession, or the desire for dominance and control. In some cases, mental health disorders, sexual motivation, or excessive dependence on the internet also contribute to such conduct. Some of the main causes are mentioned hereinafter:
i. Emotional Envy: Stalking can arise from envy, particularly toward a former partner or their current companion.
ii. Compulsive Interest and Affection: It may result from an unhealthy fixation or emotional dependence on the victim.
iii. Sexual harassment: Many offenders exploit online platforms to target victims with unwanted sexual attention.
iv. Revenge and hate: Some individuals use the internet to anonymously retaliate or vent anger against the victim. Through social media, the stalker can easily and anonymously express his or her feeling of hatred and revenge.
The above-mentioned motivations are the main reasons behind stalking. The stalker can be divided into three categories:
a) Obsessional stalkers: Their reason behind stalking is sexual harassment and sometimes love.
b) Delusional stalkers: Those who need to show their power comes under this category.
c) Vengeful stalkers: These are those who want to take revenge.
Online harassment can also manifest as sexual harassment, which involves unwelcome sexual conduct that violates the dignity of individuals, regardless of gender, especially in professional settings. This behaviour may be expressed physically, verbally, or non-verbally, and constitutes harassment when it is offensive, inappropriate, and unwarranted by the person targeted. Persistent advances despite rejection clearly amount to harassment, but even a single severe incident can also be considered sexual harassment.
Harassment in the online space can generally be divided into two types: direct and indirect. Direct harassment involves using tools like mobile phones, pagers, or email to send threatening or abusive messages meant to frighten the victim. This is similar to the behaviour of offline stalkers, who often try to reach their target through letters or repeated phone calls. Indirect harassment, on the other hand, makes use of the internet to spread hate messages, circulate false rumours, or post threatening content about a victim on websites, chat rooms, or online forums. This can be compared to offensive posters pinned on a workplace wall, which can cause distress when viewed from the victim’s perspective.
When such behaviour continues over time, whether direct or indirect, it often amounts to cyberstalking. The repeated messages may contain threats, sexual or emotional harassment, bullying, or misleading information. What matters is that they are unwanted and cause the victim to feel reasonably afraid or unsafe, which brings them under the definition of cyberstalking.
The term digital violence may include harmful or abusive behaviours through digital platforms. It comprises of online harassment, cyber bullying, cyber stalking, and the spread of gender-based discrimination through technology and can involve any form of virtual aggression along with stealing of personal data stored online or in one’s equipment.
LEGISLATION FOR ONLINE HARASSMENT, CYBER STALKING, AND DIGITAL VIOLENCE IN INDIA
In 2001, the first cyberstalking case of India was reported. Manish Kathuria was stalking an Indian woman, Ms. Ritu Kohli by illegally chatting on the web site, www.mirc.com in her name; and used obscene and obnoxious language, and shared her residence contact number, invited individuals to chat with her over the phone. Due to this, Ms. Ritu Kohli was receiving obscene calls from different states of India and outside India, and the people were speaking indecent words to her. Filled with shock, she reached out to the Delhi police and lodged a complaint. The police registered her case under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for outraging the modesty of Ritu Kohli. But Section 509 is only dealing with a word, a gesture or an act meant to insult the modesty of a woman. But if the same things are being done over Internet, then nothing is said about it in the aforementioned section. This case rattled the Indian government, because the necessity of amending laws for the aforementioned crime and for protecting the victims under the same arose which leads to the passing of various laws dealing with cyber crimes. Various legislations to curb online harassment, cyber stalking, and digital violence in India are discussed below:
1. The Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008
Section 66A of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 (hereinafter the IT Act, 2008) states:
“Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc”.- “Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,–
(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or
(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill will, persistently makes by making use of such computer resource or a communication device,
(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine”.
In 2015, this section has been struck down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.
The IT Act, 2008 does not specifically touch upon stalking. But the issue is addressed more in the form of an ‘intrusion into the privacy of an individual’ rather than as common cyber offences which are dealt with in the IT Act, 2008. Hence the most used provision for regulating cyberstalking in India is Section 72 of the IT Act, 2008 which runs as follows:
Section 72: “Breach of confidentiality and privacy – Save as otherwise provided in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, any person who, in pursuant of any of the powers conferred under this Act, rules or regulations made thereunder, has secured access to any electronic record, book, register, correspondence, information, document or other material without the consent of the person concerned discloses such electronic record, book, register, correspondence, information, document or other material to any other person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one Lakh rupees, or with both”.
Section 72A: “Punishment for disclosure of information in breach of lawful contract- Save as otherwise provided in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, any person including an intermediary who, while providing services under the terms of lawful contract, has secured access to any material containing personal information about another person, with the intent to cause or knowing that he is likely to cause wrongful loss or wrongful gain discloses, without the consent of the person concerned, or in breach of a lawful contract, such material to any other person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with a fine which may extend to five lakh rupees, or with both”.
“In practice, these provisions can be read with Section 441 ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 which has been replaced by section 329 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The section deals with offences related to criminal trespass and runs as follows: Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession ofanother with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with an intent to commit an offence, is said to commit criminal trespass”.
2. The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013
“Before February 2013, no laws directly governedcyberstalking in India. Indian parliament, in 2013, amendedthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 to incorporate cyberstalking as an offence. Since “the December 2012 Delhi gang rape incidence”, the Indian government has undertaken many initiatives to assess the current criminal laws. A special committee headed by Justice Verma was constituted for the same and according to the report of the committee, new legislations were enacted. In this course, anti-stalking law also came into effect. The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 added Section 354D in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to define and punish the act of stalking. This section is replaced by section 78 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and is as follows:
(1) Whoever follows a person and contacts, or attempts to contact such person to foster personal interaction repeatedly, despite a clear indication of disinterest by such person, or whoever monitors the use by a person of the Internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, or watches or spies on a person in a manner that results in a fear of violence or serious alarm or distress in the mind of such person, or interferes with the mental peace of such person, commits the offence of stalking:
Provided that the course of conduct will not amount to stalking if the person who pursued it shows-
(i) that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, and the person accused of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by the state; or
(ii) that it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any law; or
(iii) that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.
(2) Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine”.
The word “cyberstalking” can be replaced by the word online harassment. A cyberstalker may not pose an immediate physical danger to the victim but monitors the victim’s online activities to collect personal information and use it for threats or verbal harassment. Such an individual might avoid confronting the victim in person but has no hesitation in using the Internet or other electronic communication channels to intimidate or harass them.
Section 78 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023,“states that the punishment for stalking is imprisonment for up to three years and a fine on the first conviction. On a second or subsequent conviction, the punishment is imprisonment for up to five years and a fine”.
Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) of 2023, “is a law that protects women from actions that intend to insult their modesty. The law punishes anyone who uses words, makes gestures, or exhibits an object to insult a woman’s modesty, intends for the woman to hear the words or see the object, intrudes on a woman’s privacy to offend her. The punishment for violating Section 79 is simple imprisonment for up to three years and a fine”.
“Section 354 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023,Section 354 (1) Covers the offence of defamation, Section 354 (2) lays down the punishment for defamation, which includes simple imprisonment for up to two years, a fine or both simple imprisonment and fine.”
LANDMARK CASES
Manish Kathuria v. Ritu Kohli, This case is recognized as the first officially reported instance of cyberstalking in India. In 2001, Manish Kathuria began harassing Ms. Ritu Kohli, an Indian woman, by illegally creating an account in her name on a chat website. Using this fake account, he sent obscene, threatening, and highly offensive messages to other users, deliberately tarnishing her reputation. He also shared Ms. Kohli’s personal home phone number and encouraged multiple strangers to contact her, leading to a large number of abusive and indecent phone calls from various parts of India as well as from overseas. Many of the callers used vulgar and intimidating language, causing immense mental distress, fear, and anxiety to the victim. The constant harassment left Ms. Kohli in a state of shock, severely affecting her personal and social life. Unable to tolerate the ongoing abuse, she approached the Delhi police and filed a formal complaint. The case gained significant attention as it exposed the growing threat of online harassment and highlighted the absence of legal provisions at that time specifically addressing cyberstalking. It became a landmark incident in Indian cyber law history, drawing attention to the urgent need for legal remedies against digital crimes, raising awareness about personal safety on the internet, and paving the way for stricter laws to protect individuals from online abuse. This case is frequently cited as a pioneering instance that brought cyberstalking into the purview of Indian law enforcement and judicial consideration, marking the beginning of a framework to address online harassment in India.
The police lodged her complaint under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for outraging the modesty of Ritu Kohli. But Section 509 speaks only of a word, gesture or an act meant to insult modesty of a woman. But when the same things are done on Internet, then it is not mentioned at all in the said section. This case sent a shiver to the Indian government because the necessity arose to modify laws for the aforementioned crime and for protection of victims under the same. Therefore, in 2008 Indian legislature has modified the IT Act 2000 and included provisions for cyber stalking. The IT Act, 2008 does not explicitly deal with stalking. But the issue is addressed more like an “intrusion on to the privacy of individual” rather than as ordinary cyber offenses which are dealt with under the IT Act, 2008. Therefore, the most relied upon provision to govern cyber stalking in India is Section 72 of the IT Act, 2008.
Suhas Katti v. State of Tamil Nadu was the first case in India under the most controversial provision of I.T Act, 2000; Section 67 dealing with publishing or transmitting obscene material. In this case, Suhas, a friend of the victim who had previously expressed a desire to marry her, began harassing her online after she rejected him and later married someone else. Seeking revenge, he sent emails impersonating the victim, causing recipients to mistakenly believe she was soliciting them, which damaged her reputation. The victim filed a complaint, and Suhas was charged under Sections 469 and 509 of the IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. He was sentenced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 469 IPC, one year simple imprisonment under Section 509 IPC, and two years under Section 67 of the IT Act, with a fine of ₹5,000, and five years of imprisonment.
State Cyber Cell v. Yogesh Pandurang Prabhu, in the present case, Yogesh Pandurang Prabhu was accused of harassing a reporter by sending obscene emails. The court held that he had deliberately violated the reporter’s privacy, making him liable under Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Section 509 of the IPC. However, allegations under Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act were not established beyond reasonable doubt. The accused was therefore convicted under Section 509 of the IPC and Section 66E of the IT Act.
The Shilpa Shetty case (2014), In 2014, actress Shilpa Shetty reported an unidentified individual was engaging in cyberstalking by creating a fake Twitter profile using her name and posting defamatory and offensive content. The Mumbai Police Cyber Cell conducted an investigation, which ultimately resulted in the arrest of the perpetrator. This case highlighted the dangers of identity misuse and online harassment, emphasizing the need for vigilant monitoring and swift legal action.
The Varnika Kundu case (2017), In 2017, Chandigarh-based DJ Varnika Kundu was stalked by Vikas Barala, the son of a prominent politician. The incident attracted widespread media attention and sparked a nationwide debate on women’s safety. The accused was charged with multiple offenses, including stalking and attempted abduction, highlighting the urgent need to address harassment and protect women from such threats.
The 2012 Nirbhaya case, although primarily known as a brutal gang rape, also highlighted elements of cyberstalking. Before the incident, the perpetrators had harassed the victim through persistent phone calls and text messages. The case sparked nationwide outrage and became a turning point, leading to significant legal reforms aimed at strengthening laws against crimes targeting women.
The Malvika Joshi Case (2016), 21-year-old student Malvika Joshi reported that she was being harassed online for several months. The perpetrator, claiming to be a software engineer, had created multiple fake social media accounts and sent her threatening and obscene messages. The case highlighted the increasing issue of cyberstalking and underscored the need for stronger laws to protect individuals from online harassment.
Divya Sharma case (2020), In 2020, a Pune-based archaeology student, Divya, noticed a stranger on Instagram liking nearly 200 of her photos. Initially ignoring it, she became concerned when the person started sending inappropriate comments and direct messages asking her out. When she continued to ignore him, he became abusive and threatened to forcefully make her his wife. Divya filed an online complaint with the cyber police, leading to the suspension of the abuser’s account and legal action against him. The case highlighted the importance of taking online threats seriously and protecting oneself from harassment on social media.
CHALLENGES
One of the foremost concerns while dealing with cyberstalking in India is the gap between technological advancement and the law. Section 75 “extraterritorial jurisdiction” is the main barrier to implementation of the Information Technology Act in India. This section clearly states that anyone who commits a computer crime or a crime concerning computer systems or networks in India, whether or not they are Indian citizens, is subject to the terms of the saidAct. However, the law still needs to be expanded to cover a wider range of situations.
In addition, when the laws of two nations are directly contradictory to each other. In some places, stalking is prohibited but in others, the same action might not be criminal in nature. Thus, creating a jurisdictional issue. Consequently, there is an issue of enforcement to consider. Both countries will stand to gain by collaborating to treat this issue.
These problems mainly arise from the global reach of the internet. Since it can be accessed by anyone with a device and a connection, an offender may operate from outside the country where the crime actually occurs. While anonymity online is often beneficial, it also creates serious challenges for law enforcement in tracing and prosecuting offenders.
The internet functions as a borderless medium, giving cyberstalkers more opportunities to target individuals. Its low cost and easy accessibility mean that distance is no longer a barrier for such offenders.
Anyone using the internet can become a potential target of cyberstalking. Offenders may approach victims through emails, instant messaging, chat rooms, or social media platforms, and in some cases even attempt to hack into a person’s device to monitor their online activity.
SUGGESTIONS
To effectively dealt with cyberstalking, the first step is to create strong awareness and digital literacy among peoplethrough different modes. Many victims do not recognise the early signs of being targeted online or hesitate to report the crime due to stigma or fear. Given below are some suggestions to prevent the victimisation:
➢ Be alerted for physical access of computer and other connected devices like smartphones. Cyber stalkers mostly install malware or attach tools to devices to trackdown their victims.
➢ Make sure to log out from computer programs and to employ security always. The same should be done for smartphones.
➢ Eliminate or make hidden any digital schedules on social sites which include events to be attended. They might inform a stalker where the victim is going to and at what time.
➢ Utilise the security options on all web accounts to restrict sharing with people who are not known.
➢ Most importantly, do not hesitate to account cyberstalking to the authorities. Many police forces have dedicated cybercrime units with trained officers for handling cybercrimes since cyberstalking is a recognised crime.
TAKEAWAY
Recently cybercrime has increased out of control with resulting affects financially as well as socially on individuals, and government. Although tough laws under the Information and Technology Act, 2000 prohibits an upsurge in cybercrime but then also smarter means appear to cheat individuals on a constantly day-to-day basis having huge frauds and objectionable content. Thus, the defiant attitude of such perpetrators must be curtailed by strict enforcement of the punishments specified under the relevant Act in an endeavour to prevent sudden rise in this offence.
Both the statues Indian Penal Code of 1860 and the “Information Technology Act of 2000”, however, it does not specifically address the problem of cyberstalking or the use of abusive or threatening language by the stalker through SMS, phone calls, or emails. While few sections under these laws can be applied to punish offenders, there is no specific provision dedicated to this offence. This offence is quite easy to commit, but the effects are very enduring. It can cause harm to the mental and physical state of the victim. The punishment available under existing provisions ought to be increased while giving consideration to the well-being of the victim.