Abstract
Cyberbullying is the intentional use of digital technology against a person in order to harass, threaten or embarrass them. Even though there are certain legislation dedicated to cybercrimes in India, they only safeguard women and the pediatric population neglecting a significant number of adult men and LGBTQ+ victims. This paper will look into the loophole in the Indian law on protecting adults against cyberbullies. This paper examines the existing scheme of the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act, 2000, points out its deficiencies, and analyzes it in relation to the international laws through the prism of doctrinal and comparative legal studies. The report notes that Indian legal system fails to effectively defend adult victims of cyberbullying because it is vague, elusive, and unenforceable. In order to help solve this critical question of digital rights, the research finds its conclusion in suggesting age and gender-free reformation, faster redress mechanism and creation of awareness.
Keywords: Cyberbullying, Indian Cyber Law, Adult Victims, Information Technology Act, 2000, Legal Reforms, Online Harassment
Introduction
India is also undergoing an upsurge of cybercrime during its escalated digital, market expansion. In early 2000s, India was the first to legislate an effort to do so, by enacting the Information Technology Act, 2000. To begin with, the law had nothing to say on online harassment or cyber bulling since it was mainly focused on the issues such as pornography, hacking and e-commerce fraud. The misuse of online mediums rose along with the growing use of smartphones and the use of the internet, especially after the Digital India initiative in 2015.
The issue of cyber bullying is becoming popular. UN describes it as the act which is not associated with any action that is blatant after harassing, threatening, and humiliating a third party, with the use of computer technology. In India, although the use of digital platforms is on the rise, there is no specific definition of the issue of cyberbullying in the law. Majority of the acts i.e. POCSO Act or even section 354D IPC are meant to protect the women or children and the adult male and the LGBTQ + victims remain unprotected.
Cyberbullying must not be mixed up with the online criticism of trolling. It is the ongoing persecution that aims at damaging the state of mind or emotion of a human being. Trolling, in as much as it is rude, may not be repetitive and personal. Cyberbullying entails the loss of identity in addition to threats and humiliation whereas cyberstalking comes with surveillance. In 2022, a 32-year-old Delhi journalist accused that she had been harassed over the previous months because of political tweets. The police rejected the FIR due to lack of provisions under the laws.
He or she can be harmed by cyberbullying in the aspect of his or her reputation, his or her career and his or her mind, which could be represented on anxiety, depression, and suicidal feelings. The adults are one of the most vulnerable groups in India since the social media is widely adopted in India, and so is the culture of a remote work environment as well as the extensive internet penetration.
Research Methodology
This study is doctrinal and qualitative. It is dependent upon:
Primary sources: Information Technology Act, 2000; Indian Penal Code, 1860; Judicial decisions.
Secondary sources: Scholarly journals, newspaper article, NCRB statistics, Law commission reports.
Comparative Study: Law of the international system, of the UK, USA, Australia, and South Korea and Japan.
One can interpret it in the statutory analysis or cases law review or the content of methodological skills. The restrictions are availability of unreachable confidential complaint documents or even internal police documents.
Review of Literature
Past legal commentary has been undertaken on the gendered cyber protection. Examples of anti-cyberstalking laws that have been encouraged includes the National Commission for Women (NCW) through strong anti-Cyberstalking laws targeted towards women. The most of academic research is devoted to juvenile offenders under the statement of the POCSO Act (Bhattacharya, 2020). UN reports (UNODC, 2018) illustrate that the digital safety issue is a major crisis globally yet solutions to victims in India who are adults are not listed in the report. The legal scholars such as Rajiv Dhingra (2021) confirm that the laws of India fail to adopt a consistent position regarding digital injury. The studies by the Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI, 2022) have made it clear that more than 60 percent of adult men have been facing online harassment, but 10 percent speak about it due to the impossibility to prevent it. The gap is obvious, as adult males and LGBTQ+ victims are primarily undermined, whereas women and children are decently covered.
Method
A. Current Legal Framework in India
Even though there is no dedicated and cohesive piece of legislation in India that deals with cyberbullying, several laws assist in controlling and criminally punishing cyberbullying. The primary legislation that concerns cyber crimes is the Information Technology Act of 2000 that was amended in 2008. Looking at the violations of privacy, these will be punished under Section 66E, whereas publishing pornographic material online will be under Sections 67 and 67A, including but not limited to doctored photos or risque content that is delivered to harass individuals. Often cyberbullying incorporates the ideas of identity theft and online impersonation that is addressed in the sixth and seventh parts of 66C and 66D.
The Indian Penal Code of 1860 adds traditional laws that are currently applied in digital scenarios to the Indian IT Act. The crimes of cyber bullying complaints are occasionally misquoted with Sections 354A, (sexual harassment), 499, (499 defamation), 503, (criminal intimidation) and 507, (anonymous threatening communication). Such provisions help in dealing with the harm that internet abuse has on the reputation and feelings.
Moreover, in the cases, when minors are the victims of cyberbullying, especially, in the cases of sexting or grooming, then the issue is regulated by the Protection of Children against Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. In case of pornographic materials targeted to women the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act of 1986 is also implemented. There is no individual law in this regard, and thus in absence of any particular law, victims of cyberbullying can seek remedy through the multi-level framework formed by these acts.
Some of the cybercrimes are addressed by the Information Technology Act, 2000. Section 66C is concerned with identity theft, and Section 66D is concerned with the misrepresentation by impersonation online. Section 67 and section 67A do not allow publishing obscene material or materials of a sexual nature. The punishment of offensive internet messages in section 66A was overruled in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015).
According to the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the sexual harassment of women is regulated by Section 354A (it is available only to females), and stalking is governed by Section 354D (gender-specific). Section 499 spells defamation and Section 503 has something to do with criminal intimidation.
Other laws: POCSO Act, 2012: Protects minors
Indecent Representation of Women Act, 1986
Limitations: As much as India has statutes governing its laws, the legal structure is very weak in handling cases of cyberbullying in the proper manner. The first one is that there is no very distinct description or special support to the expression of cyberbullying especially in case the victim is an adult in the Information Technology Act of 2000. Most of the provisions are traditional in nature with an orientation to be reactive with an added focus on punishment rather than preventative or corrective measures. The provisions of IPC adopted in cases of cyberbullying are formulated with offline crime in mind and often do not address online nuances of injury, like incessant harassment or cyber trolling. Moreover, POCSO offers only protection to children underage, in that regard, adult victims cannot receive special protection, in particular, women and LGBTQ+.
Apart from that, inexperience of police departments with cybercrime and the sluggishness of intermediaries, such as social media companies, adds to under-enforcement. Underreporting exists due to poor redressal of grievances to the victim, complex jurisdiction, and awaiting long procedures. Overall, the discontinuous and archaic legal system fails to legally protect the lives of many adult victims in the internet world.
B. Who Is Left Unprotected?
1. Adult males: They are targeted due to their political or religious beliefs. Seriously, an example was the case of comedian Kunal Kamra who was subjected to internet threats and defamation. No criminal FIR was based.
2. LGBTQ+ individuals: hate campaigns, doxxing and outing. As an example, a transgender activist Grace Banu had been receiving threats and targeted harassment on Facebook.
3. Influencers, journalists, and teachers are under online victimization and slander. It has been estimated by IAMAI (2022) that 40 percent of working professionals have experienced cyber bullying in the workplace.
Psychological and Social Impact on Adults
Cyber bullying results into serious mental stress. The victims exhibit suicidal tendencies, depression, lack of regard, and anxiety. Adults especially working professionals fear losing their jobs and ruination of their reputation. Through identity-based hate, outing, and doxxing, LGBTQ+ people are suffering mentally and are isolated socially.
Adults often have no adequate institutional or family support. Fear of not being taken seriously is also another barrier though it is more common among male victims. This complication is worsened on the part of adults who reveal the emotional trauma due to the cultural taboos. A 2021 NIMHANS research identified a connection between the rise of adult mental health issues, which are directly related to internet harassment.
Another big problem is the absence of counsellors and support groups that should be offered to adults that become victims of cyberbullying. Most people raising awareness and mental health services are directed towards children or adolescents, which means that adults lack support. When adults wish to confide in someone about what they have undergone, they may not know where to seek therapy or would be ashamed to seek therapy. Off-screen, internet harassment may provoke moodiness, sleeping problems, lack of a good performance at work, and even lack of communication with the environment. Unless early assistance is sought, this emotional injury may turn into a chronic case. Due to this, it is important that the society, the law enforcement and the companies should recognize cyberbullying against adults as being equally in need of protection, care and attention.
C. International Legal Comparison
The UK Online Safety Act of 2023 states that the platforms must take care of the users by ensuring that they are not harmed. Under 1988 Malicious Communications Act, offensive communications are offered.
USA: The legislation against cyberbullying exists on the state level (the state of California, New York, etc.), but not federal.
Australia: In Australia, they have permission to delete offensive contents by their eSafety commissioner. The suicides of renowned celebrities made South Korea and Japan to harden the cyber defamation laws.
Germany: The Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG) provides the complaint of the hatred speech in the social net: the exclusion of the hate speech within 24 hours is necessary.
Singapore: The two remedies are civil and criminal in the regard of protecting harassment under The Protection against Harassment Act (POHA).
South Korea and Japan: Increased their efforts against cyber defamation in the wake of suicide by celebrities.
D. Cases
1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Citation: (2015) 5 SCC 1.
Facts: Two women were arrested along with such charges as section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 because they clicked on the Like and Share buttons on a Facebook comment that complained about the curfew imposed on Mumbai after a politician died. The arrests angered the population. A student of law Shreya Singhal had challenged the constitutionality of Section 66A through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as it was thought to be a violation of Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution which provides guarantee of the right to free speech and expression.
Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that section 66A was illegal since it was vague, subjective and overbroad, thus leading to arbitrary arrests. Offensive, annoyance and inconvenience were those words which, as far as the Court was concerned, were too blanket and violated the right to free speech. The decision emphasized the attention to a clear definition of reasonable restrictions created in Article 19(2). Because of this, Section 66A was struck in its entirety and this was a great achievement victory of digital rights in India.
2. Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka (2015)
Citation: (2015) 7 SCC 423.
Facts: Manik Taneja and his wife posted poor remarks against the Bangalore Traffic Police claiming that they were errant. A complaint was filed by the police as per Section 66A of the IT ACT and Sections 353 and 506 of IPC (Criminal Intimidation & Assault of a Public official). After the couple had taken the case to the High Court seeking a dismissal of the FIR, the matter reached the Supreme Court.
Judgment: According to the decision of the Supreme Court, the dissemination of criticism on social media publicly should not be regarded as a crime in case it is not accompanied by any threats, intimidation, or physical barrier. The Court observed that in Article 19(1)(a), even the mere act of criticizing or showing disapproval of the officials in authority was a right that could not be taken away. It did not fulfill the provisions of IPC Section 353 which made it impossible to use criminal force to deter a public worker. The FIR was thrown out, proving that individuals are free to express their disapproval without fear of attracting legal consequences.
E. Gaps in Reporting Mechanism
The current mechanism for reporting cyberbullying in India suffers from serious shortcomings. Many police officers are not trained to understand digital crimes, often leading to rejection of complaints that don’t fall under clearly defined offences in the IPC or IT Act.When victims approach the police, they are often told that no offence has occurred, especially if the victim is male or LGBTQ+. There is no uniform online grievance redressal system or centralized helpline for adult victims of cyberbullying. Moreover, delays in action and lack of confidentiality deter people from filing complaints. Legal language in existing statutes is complex and gender-biased, making it harder for victims to identify applicable laws.
Most victims especially those in employment also do not come out because they fear humiliation or being reprimanded in the orders. Consequently, the gap between the cases of cyberbullying and definite legal reactions is too great because of the absence of transparency, know-how, and readiness on the part of the institutions.
Cultural Stigma: Why Adults Don’t Report Cyberbullying
One of the most ignored barriers is the cultural stigma of cyberbullying against adult Indians. The victims of sexual assaults especially men and LGBTQ+ adults tend to stay silent due to the strong norm of society where minors and adolescents have received at least a measure of assistance via schools, parental control and the child protection legislation such as the POCSO Act.
In Indian society, adults are supposed to be independent and emotionally stable. To report on online harassment, a man can be perceived as weak or unmanly thus strengthening the ideals
of toxic masculinity.The women who are abused online might also opt not to disclose to save on the face of their families or avoid criticisms about use of the internet. The consequences of reporting can include threats of violence, even greater prejudice within the family or society, or in LGBTQ+ people even an open declaration of sexuality.
Grace Banu, a transgender rights activist, also talked publicly about being doxxed and trolled mercilessly over social media, being misgendered or threatened with direct violence on a regular basis. As per her claims in the interview, she chose not to report to the police because she had already suffered discriminating behaviors towards them.
The 2021 NIMHANS Report found that the number of cyber trauma cases in which adult men were involved was also growing; however, most of them remained unreported due to the absence of trust in the process of law enforcement, fear of a loss of reputation, and isolation on an emotional level.
The lack of secure and anonymous reports of incidents in social media sites is even more repellent to the victims. Due to the absence of suitable standards of the workplace environment, the knowledge of the law, and the care of relatives, a circle is formed in which adult victims either remain internalized about the trauma or reject and silently leave the digital space and do not focus on treating mental health.
It is also becoming a culture that should be changed to fight adult cyberbullying where people does not mock other on their emotional vulnerability and online abuse is considered one of the most serious violations no matter the age, gender or identity.
Suggestions
1. Legal Definition of Cyberbullying: A stand‑alone statute ought to be developed that would offer a comprehensive and accurate legal definition of cyberbullying. Doxxing, identity theft, abusive speech, online stalking, sharing of non‑consensual content and psychological harassment should all fall under this.
2. Gender‑Neutral / Age‑Neutral Laws: To ensure that there is equal protection to all adults, irrespective of gender and identity, replace any gender specific terms such as woman or a woman in sections such as 354D IPC with neutral terminology, i.e. a person.
3. Independent Law: Enact a certain level Cyberbullying Prohibition Act, which outlines the fines, platform duty, complaint procedures and compensation of the victims.
4. Creation of Cyber Civil Rights Commission: A special body should be created to monitor internet bullying, and prosecute takedown, and provide relief to work in India, based on the Australian example of eSafety Commissioner.
5. Tech Platforms Accountability: Make it mandatory that the digital companies appoint a local grievance officer and that the issues raised by the consumer be resolved within 7‑15 days. Consequences will have to take precedence of the noncompliances.
6. Training of Police and the Judges: The police and the judges would need regular training programs to deal with the cases of cyberbullying among adults in a sensitive and an efficient manner.
7. Nationwide awareness campaigns about digital literacy and anti‑cyberbullying should be held in offices, academic institutions, and other places.
8. Fast‑Track Redress Mechanism: Put a 30‑day time frame on online complaints about harassment to be addressed by some form of digital ombudsmen mechanisms or cyber cells.
Conclusion
The current judicial frameworks, including the IT Act, 2000, and IPC, offer piecemeal and undoubtedly gender biased defenses, which render adult men, persons belonging to the LGBTQ+ community, and the corporate and working world defenseless and have no means of redress. Moreover, an absence of a gender‑indifferent, age-based legal definition of cyberbullying is still a failure in the quest to prevent access to justice. Cyberbullying is no longer a peripheral phenomenon that is limited to the teenage group; it represents a major challenge to the psychological well-being of adults, and their liberty on the digital platform, and their sense of self-respect.
As per this study, cultural stigma, lack of legal clarity, poor implementation, and negligible accountability by online platforms make the victims feel hostile against adult victims. The lack of interest by the police and the social reprobation does not allow the victims to obtain any help, even in the cases where abuse was reported. This causes permanent mental tortures, career loss, and in some cases, even suicides.
One does not only need to handle adult cyberbullying legally, but it is an aspect of human rights. The virtual world has to be equally considerate and secure like the real one. An online community needs access to mental health resources, a more inclusive policy‑making process, awareness campaigns, and protection equal to the one regarding the digital law in order to be properly fair and balanced. Up until all adult victims are recognized and given a legal cover, India will not obtain a fully effective cyber governance system.
Submitted By-
Aradhana Samanta
SOA National Institute of Law,
Bhubaneswar