INTRODUCTION
Both good and bad things came about as a result of technology. While technology has undoubtedly made life easier for many, there are growing issues that are preventing certain individuals from leading peaceful lives. This article explains what constitutes cyber bullying, the laws that apply to it in India, and the legal recourse available to stop it.
CYBERATTACKS
Cyber bullying is defined as “the process of using the internet, cell phones, or other devices to send or post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person[2]” by the National Crime Prevention Council. Cyber bullying is the practice of harassing or defaming someone online or through other digital platforms or communication channels, such as email, direct messaging, and other social media applications. The phrase used when negative information about a person spreads online and harms or degrades their reputation.
THE INDIAN PERSPECTIVE
Although cyber bullying is becoming more common in India every day, the nation does not yet have any explicit legislation against it. The Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act of 2000 both have sections that address the punishments for cyber bullying.
In a news release titled “Digital Exploitation of Children,” the Ministry of Women and Child Development said that IPC sections 354A and 354D provide penalties for cyber bullying and cyber stalking directed at women.
Stalking women over the internet is now prohibited by law, as of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 2013, which introduced section 354D to the IPC.
The following are the locations where cyber bullying occurs:
Social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, etc.) Text messages sent over cellular networks, or SMS Instant Messaging Services (Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, IMessage, and so on) Send an email
In State of West Bengal v. Animesh Boxi, the accused broke into the victim’s phone and stole some of her explicit and private photos. She was then threatened with blackmail and forced to upload the stolen images and videos online, whereupon the accused posted the victim’s intimate photos and videos on an explicit website. The West Bengal District Court held the defendants guilty in line with sections 66C and 66E of the IT Act as well as sections 354A, 354C, 354D, and 509 of the IPC.
Making a Facebook profile under someone else’s name is not too difficult, and with one, it is feasible to inaccurately represent the victim. Numerous incidences involving phony Facebook profiles are occurring in India. When a fake Facebook profile is created and vulgar or obscene photos of the victim are uploaded to it, Sections 354A (sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment), 354D (stalking), 499 read with Section 500 (Defamation and Punishment for defamation), Section 507 (Criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication), and Section 509 (Word, gesture, or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the IPC may come into play.
The offender in Shubham Bansal v. The State (Govt of NCT Delhi) [4] created a fictitious Facebook page with the victim’s phone number inserted under the name Nidhi Taneja. The victim was offended, humiliated, and harassed by this, and as a result, a First Information Report (FIR) was filed against the accused. The victim then requested that the investigating officer look into the case further in a second application filed under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. The matter was therefore remanded to the Metropolitan Magistrate for additional review. The accused then filed a request to have the proceedings under Sections 66A of the IT Act and Section 509 of the IPC against him dismissed.
In the case of Hareesh v. State of Kerala, the petitioner created a false Facebook profile, posted explicit photos of the victim online, and included her phone number underneath the offensive post so that people may contact her. Following that, the applicant submitted an application for anticipatory bail. The applicant had been arrested for offenses punishable by Section 354(D) of the IPC and Sections 67 and 67E of the IT Act. The Kerala High Court denied the application for anticipatory bail, citing evidence in the file confirming the applicant’s involvement in the charges and arguing that it would not be proper for the court to interfere with the investigation.
CONCLUSION
Based on the aforementioned study, it can be inferred that further rules may be established in the near future, with the primary goal of the government being to protect the privacy of individuals and businesses. The government should maintain the trust of its citizens by protecting and providing security of data privacy, which should not backfire in the eyes of the public and not be a failing implementation for the citizens of India but also serve as a watchdog for people worldwide. This can be achieved through constant growth in technological advancement and increased regulations.
