Source: Kerala High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice C. S. Sudha states that the absence of specific legal provisions to address cyberbullying and online harassment, urging legislative action to fill this gap. 

• The Kerala High Court held this in the matter of Fakrudeen K. V. @ Fakrudheen Panthavoor v State of Kerala and Another (2025). 

What was the Background of Fakrudeen K. V. @ Fakrudheen Panthavoor v. State of Kerala and Another? 

• The appellant/accused was charged in Crime No. 251/2024 at Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam, for uploading a derogatory video on his YouTube channel, Visal Media. 
• The case involves the appellant downloading and editing videos originally uploaded by Sooraj Palakkaran, an editor of True T.V., depicting the second respondent/informant. 
• The edited video included an interview with the informant's husband and portrayed her as a person allegedly involved in immoral activities. 
• The appellant created and uploaded the video on 22nd June 2022, allegedly with prior knowledge of the informant's scheduled caste background. 
• The video described the informant as a woman who deserted her husband, allegedly engaged in immoral activities, and was part of a supposed sex racket. 
• The informant had previously filed complaints against online platforms like Crime Online, True T.V., and Bharat Live T.V. 
• The appellant was charged under multiple sections, including Section 354A(i)(iii), 354A(1)(iv), 509 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act,2000 (IT) and Sections 3(1)(r), (s), (w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989. 
• The appellant sought pre-arrest bail, which was initially dismissed by the Sessions Court, leading to this appeal. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The court carefully examined the video content and found it to be indisputably derogatory and constituting online harassment against the informant. 
• While acknowledging that the appellant did not specifically mention the informant's caste name, the court determined that the video's content was abusive and insulting. 
• The court noted that the video depicted the informant as a woman of loose morals and sexually promiscuous, with the content viewed by over 100,000 people. 
• The legal analysis revealed potential challenges in establishing offences under Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 due to insufficient evidence. 
• The court states a significant gap in legal frameworks addressing cyberbullying, particularly non-sexual forms of online harassment. 
• Despite the lack of explicit caste references, the court found that an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was made out. 
• The court ultimately dismissed the appellant's appeal, maintaining that the bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the Act was correctly applied by the trial court. 

What is Cyber Bullying? 

• Cyberbullying is a form of harassment that occurs through digital platforms, utilizing electronic devices and online communication channels to intentionally harm, degrade, or intimidate another person. 
• It encompasses various malicious activities such as sending threatening messages, sharing embarrassing images or videos, spreading rumors, creating fake online profiles, and excluding individuals from digital social groups. 
• Unlike traditional bullying, cyberbullying provides perpetrators constant access to victims through mobile devices and often allows for anonymous harassment, making it particularly distressing. 
• The digital nature of cyberbullying means that harmful content can be quickly shared, potentially reaching a wide audience and causing prolonged psychological damage to the victim. 
• Typical manifestations of cyberbullying include social media harassment, messaging service abuse, online stalking, and creating platforms to publicly humiliate or shame individuals. 
• The psychological consequences for victims can be severe, potentially leading to reduced self-confidence, social withdrawal, depression, anxiety, and in extreme cases, suicidal thoughts. 
• With the increasing prevalence of internet and digital technologies, cyberbullying has emerged as a significant social issue, particularly affecting younger demographics and women. 
• Unlike traditional bullying confined to specific spaces like schools, cyberbullying transcends physical boundaries, making victims vulnerable to harassment at any time and from anywhere. 

What are the Legal Provisions Related to Cyber Bullying? 

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (amended in 2008) provides several sections addressing cybercrimes, including Sections 66(D), 66(E), and 67, which offer penalties for misusing personal details, publishing inappropriate content, and posting vulgar or insulting information online. 
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) contains multiple provisions that can be applied to cyberbullying, including Section 507 for criminal threats, Section 354(C) for non-consensual photography of women, and Section 354(D) for online stalking and monitoring without consent. 
• Section 499 of the IPC penalizes derogatory communications, which can be interpreted as cyberbullying when conducted through social media or digital platforms. 
• Specific provisions targeting women's protection include Section 354A for sexual harassment and Section 354D for stalking, which covers both offline and online monitoring of a woman's electronic communications. 
• The IT Act and IPC provide legal recourse for various forms of digital harassment, such as Section 67 for publishing pornographic content, Section 67A for transmitting sexually explicit material, and Section 509 for actions intended to offend a woman's modesty. 
• For men facing cyberstalking, legal remedies include defamation under Section 499 and criminal intimidation under Section 503 of the IPC, though specific protection mechanisms are less comprehensive compared to those for women. 
• Additional legal provisions include Section 292A for printing or advertising obscene or slanderous material, Section 66E for privacy invasion, and Section 507 for anonymous criminal communications.