Digital Harassment And Cyberbullying: Strengthening Legal Remedies For Online Victims

INTRODUCTION

Communication, education, and information access have all been transformed by the internet. But it has also created new opportunities for harm. Cyberbullying and digital harassment have become major risks to one's privacy, mental health, and personal safety. Victims frequently endure constant abuse, threats, trolling, doxxing, or sexual exploitation based on images. Despite the speed at which technology is developing, the legal frameworks designed to shield people from this kind of online abuse sometimes fall behind. This essay examines the Indian legal system's response to cyberbullying and internet harassment, examines significant court rulings, and makes recommendations for improving victim protection measures.

BACKGROUND AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Information Technology Act, 2000 (as amended in 2008) provide the main legal basis for dealing with cybercrime in India. In cases of cyberbullying and online harassment, specific provisions are invoked, such as Section 66E (violation of privacy), Section 67 (publishing obscene material), and Section 67A (sexually explicit content) of the IT Act, as well as IPC Sections 354D (cyberstalking), 509 (insulting a woman's modesty), and 500 (defamation).

Because of jurisdictional problems, a lack of knowledge, and insufficient enforcement, incidents of internet harassment frequently slip through the cracks despite these laws. Women, children, and underprivileged groups are disproportionately impacted by cybercrimes, which highlights the need for a more adaptable and inclusive judicial system.

LEGAL CHALLENGES IN HANDLING CYBERBULLYING AND DIGITAL HARASSMENT 

One of the main legal challenges is that Indian law does not provide a thorough description of cyberbullying. The psychological, social, and long-term impacts of online harassment are not covered by the majority of current regulations, which only target certain aspects of the problem. Furthermore, even while laws are in place on paper, their effective application is hampered by procedural errors, a lack of knowledge of digital forensics, and inadequate training for law enforcement. Many victims are not aware of their legal options, and police officers sometimes refuse to file formal complaints or carry out in-depth investigations.

Recent rulings and case law 

The Supreme Court invalidated Section 66A of the IT Act, which made sending insulting communications over communication services illegal, in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015). Although this ruling was praised as a win for free expression, it also eliminated a weapon that could have been used to stop some types of cyber harassment, creating a regulatory vacuum.

The Kerala High Court ruled in Faheema Shirin v. State of Kerala (2019) that, in accordance with Article 21 of the Constitution, internet access is a basic right. Despite being centered on internet access, the case sparked a conversation about striking a balance between digital rights and safety.

A lady who was exposed to revenge porn received a favorable order in Rekha Sharma v. Unknown (2021, Delhi HC), requiring social media companies to take down explicit content and reveal the identify of the uploader. The need of prompt redress and intermediary responsibility was emphasized by this case.

Expert Commentary

According to legal experts, India's cyber regulations are more reactive than proactive. According to advocate Karuna Nundy, survivors find it more difficult to obtain prompt justice when there is a lack of victim-centric legal infrastructure. The necessity for a specific "Cyberbullying Prevention Act," akin to laws in nations like the UK and Australia that penalize persistent online harassment and require educational awareness programs, has been repeatedly highlighted by cyberlaw expert Pavan Duggal.

CHALLENGES OR GAPS 

Digital crisis centers, psychological counseling, and fast-track cybercrime courts are just a few examples of the conspicuous absence of victim support services. Social media companies and other intermediaries frequently delay taking action by claiming that their international regulations conflict with Indian legislation. Furthermore, it is challenging to track down offenders due to online anonymity. The present legislation prioritizes criminal provisions above rehabilitation and prevention. Enforcement is made more difficult by the lack of data protection legislation.

SUGGESTIONS AND WAY FORWARD

• Comprehensive Law: There is an immediate need for a stand-alone law that targets cyberbullying and internet harassment in particular. Definitions, sanctions, preventative measures, and intermediary recommendations should all be part of this.

  
  

• Enforce mandatory reporting and accountability by requiring platforms to respond to complaints within 24 to 48 hours and to hold non-compliant platforms accountable.

  
  

• Building Capacity: Consistent training sessions on digital laws and combating cybercrimes for law enforcement, the courts, and prosecutors.

  
  

• Public understanding Campaigns: To raise understanding of internet rights, privacy settings, and how to report cybercrimes, the government and civil society must work together.

  
  

• Victim-Centric Support: Provide technical, legal, and psychological support by setting up online helplines, helpdesks, and legal aid clinics in each state.

  
  

• Data Privacy Law: Implement a strong data protection framework to fight against identity theft and abuse based on images.

CONCLUSION

Cyberbullying and digital harassment are social problems that need for an all-encompassing strategy in addition to being legal ones. Even if it is beneficial, India's current legal system is unable to handle the complexity of internet abuse. Legislative change, institutional capacity building, technology collaboration, and awareness-raising are all components of strengthening legal remedies. For a digital India to be genuinely inclusive, protecting digital citizens—particularly women, children, and underrepresented voices—must become a moral and legal need.

REFERENCES

• The Information Technology Act, 2000.

• Indian Penal Code, 1860

• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523

• Faheema Shirin v. State of Kerala, 2019 (2) KHC 88

• Rekha Sharma v. Unknown, Delhi High Court Order, 2021

• Pavan Duggal, "Cyber Law in India," 2020

• Karuna Nundy, Public Talks and Interviews on Cyber Safety (2022)

• NCRB Report on Cyber Crimes, 2023

DISCLAIMER- This article has been submitted by Vibhu Patel, trainee under the LLL Legal Training Program. The views and opinions expressed in this piece are solely those of the author.