Published on: 23rd December 2025
Authored by: Dhruvi Vyas
GLS (Faculty of Law)
Abstract
In an interconnected digital landscape, cyberbullying has emerged as a prevalent type of harassment that jeopardizes the mental health, dignity, and safety of individuals, particularly women and youth. While India has advanced in creating laws to manage online conduct, the lack of a specific legal framework for cyberbullying continues to be a significant concern. This article examines the legal options offered by Indian law, highlights shortcomings in enforcement, and suggests reforms informed by international comparative practices. Cyberbullying has transformed from a social annoyance to a significant legal issue related to privacy, consent, free expression, and digital responsibility. The abstract quality of online harm, combined with anonymity and swift dissemination, renders conventional enforcement strategies ineffective. This piece evaluates legal and judicial responses to cyberbullying and highlights the necessity for a unified, victim-oriented strategy that integrates legal consequences with social awareness. Cyberbullying extends beyond a technological concern; it is a deeply human issue that requires immediate legal and social action.
Keywords
Cyberbullying, Legal Remedies, IT Act, IPC, Online Harassment, Social Media.
Introduction
The virtual space is now both a platform and an instrument. It gives voice to some, but silences others in the form of hate, threats, and defamation. Cyberbullying, which refers to repetitive, deliberate harassment via electronic means, has become a silent pandemic with specific targets such as school children, women, and minority voices. Recently, a
Microsoft Survey was conducted in 2020, which shows India to be one of the leading nations when it comes to online bullying. India, however, does not have specific legislation to address cyberbullying. Victims typically end up depending on incomplete provisions of the IT Act, 2000, and the IPC, 1860.
“Freedom of speech should never be at the expense of another’s dignity.”
The hour calls for an integrated, victim-oriented legal framework to challenge this new evil.
Understanding Cyberbullying: A Contemporary Social Menace
Cyberbullying is defined as the use of electronic communication—social media sites, messaging apps, online forums, and emails—to harass, intimidate, humiliate, or repeatedly target a person. It comes in various forms, including:
Sending threatening or abusive emails, usually anonymously.
Sending private or explicit photos or videos without authorization can result in damage to one’s reputation and extreme emotional anguish.
Creating false profiles or pretending to be another person on the internet to defame or victimize others.
Trolling, online stalking, and posting malicious rumors with the intent to embarrass or ostracize the victim.
The most important features that differentiate cyberbullying from other types of harassment are its anonymity, persistence, and possibility of going viral. While in the case of physical bullying it remains limited to a specific place or moment in time, cyberbullying can trail victims wherever they go, tormenting them round-the-clock via their devices.
The victims of such attacks suffer deep emotional trauma, such as anxiety, depression, withdrawal from social circles, and even self-injurious behaviour or suicidal propensities. Students, women, LGBTQ individuals, and celebrities are particularly vulnerable to these attacks.
Current Legal Provisions in India
India has no specific statute yet to define or criminalize cyberbullying as an independent offence. Yet, provisions in existing legislation can be used to deal with various types of cyber abuse. These laws, fragmented as they are, offer limited but pragmatic remedies:
➢ IT Act, 2000 (Sec. 66C)1: This section of the IT Act, 2000, addresses identity theft. It imposes penalties on anyone who dishonestly or fraudulently applies the electronic signature, password, or any other distinctive identification feature of another individual. The person committing the offence of identity theft shall be punished with imprisonment of up to three years and a fine up to one lakh rupees.
➢ IT Act, 2000 (Sec. 66D):2 This section focuses on cheating by impersonation using computer resources, which is a frequent approach in cyberbullying offenses relating to imitation profiles. The person committing the offense under this section shall be punished up to three years and will also be liable to a fine of up to one lakh rupees.
➢ IT Act, 2000 (Sec. 67):3 This section deals with the concept of ‘Obscenity’ in the digital space. As per this section, any person who publishes any material which is ‘lascivious’ or something that excites the other person maliciously will be committing the offence under this section. The person committing the offence under this section shall be punished with imprisonment up to three years or a fine which may extend to five lakh rupees on first conviction. On committing this offence the second time, the imprisonment is up to five years with a fine of up to ten lakh rupees.
➢ IT Act, 2000 (Sec. 67 A)4: As per this section, any person who publishes anything that is sexually explicit shall be punished with imprisonment up to five years with a fine of up to ten lakh on the first conviction. Whereas on committing it on the second or subsequent conviction with the person shall be imprisoned up to seven years and fined up to ten lakh rupees.
➢ IT Act, 2000 (Sec 67 B)5: This section criminalizes the acts of publishing or downloading, or sharing sexually explicit content that shows children whose is under the age of 18 years. It also includes talking to children for sexual reasons, helping others to do such things, and saving or recording such content. When such an offense is done for the first time then that person will be punished with imprisonment up to five years and fined up to ten lakh rupees. On committing such a crime a second time, the imprisonment is up to seven years and a fine up to ten lakh rupees.
➢ IPC, 1860 (Sec. 354 D)6: This section of IPC criminalises stalking, such as tracking a person on the internet or repeatedly trying to reach them through digital means after being asked or requested not to do so. It also safeguards people, especially women, from internet harassment and provides them with a means to legally fight back. The person committing such an offence under this section will be punished with simple or grievous imprisonment for up to three years and is also liable to pay a fine on their first conviction. On a second or subsequent conviction, the offender will be punished with simple or grievous imprisonment for up to five years and will also be liable to pay a fine. ➢ IPC, 1860 (Sec. 499 & 500)7: These sections cover defamation. According to these sections, a person who uploads false or defamatory content regarding another person on the internet can be punished under these sections. It serves to keep the dignity and reputation of the persons defamed intact through social media or any other websites. Whoever commits the offence of defamation under this section will be punished with simple imprisonment up to two years or will also be liable to a fine or both.
➢ IPC, 1860 (Sec. 507)8: This section targets criminal intimidation by anonymous communication. It is useful in cyberbullying cases where the abuser hides their real identity behind fake profiles or uses unknown numbers to threaten the victim. The person committing such an offence under this section will be punished with imprisonment of up to two years.
➢ IPC, 1860 (Sec. 509)9: This section specifically protects the Modesty of Women. It applies when someone sends vulgar, offensive, or sexually colored remarks through online platforms. It recognizes the gendered nature of many cyberbullying cases and offers legal protection.
KEY CASELAWS:
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India10:
This was one of the landmark cases in the year 2015, where the HON’BLE Supreme Court of India had struck down Sec. 66A of the IT Act. This section of the law empowered the police to arrest someone who had posted material on the internet that was “offensive” or “annoying”. The court held that it was in breach of the freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution. This ruling was celebrated for protecting online expression, but it took away a judicial device utilized to fight online abuse. Consequently, cyberbullying victims have fewer immediate legal remedies at hand, leaving a significant gap in India’s digital safety framework.
Shubham Bansal v. State of NCT Delhi (2019)11
Here, under this case, the main issue was that the child was the victim of an incident of cyberbullying, which included abusive messages being shared among students via WhatsApp and Instagram. The petitioner contended that there was an emerging tendency of cyberbullying among students and that the school administration and parents were not equipped to handle it. The respondents countered that the IPC & IT Act were already equipped with legal weapons, and new legislation was unnecessary.
The Delhi High Court adopted a reformative strategy. It instructed the education department to ensure the schools’ digital safety education. The court insisted that the children who take part in cyberbullying must be counseled, not criminalised. It proved to be the judiciary’s transition towards awareness and institutional response instead of punishment alone.
Challenges in Enforcement
Despite provisions made, enforcement remains weak due to several reasons. These include police not being trained in cybercrime, jurisdiction confusion among states, victims’ refusal to report due to stigma, and the lack of quick cyber courts. According to some articles, the doctrinal legal approach often confuses victims about their legal procedures and rights. One reason for legislative reluctance is India’s preference for general laws over specific acts related to conduct. After the misuse of Section 66A, lawmakers have been hesitant to overregulate speech. However, this results in legal ambiguity that harms victims more than it protects free speech.
Comparative Global Approaches
The countries like the UK and Australia both have cyber-specific laws that are “The Malicious Communications Act” in the UK makes online messages illegal. The other one is “Australia’s Online Safety Act 2021,” which makes platforms remove bullying posts within 24 hours.
India can learn from these by enacting one piece of legislation that puts together precise definitions, expeditious redressals, and online literacy drives. A template Indian law should define cyberbullying, lay down proportionate penalties, have time-bound content takedowns, and provide protection to the victims.
A Way Ahead: Legal and Social Reforms
There are various ways through which various legal and social reforms should be brought, like:
- Implement a comprehensive Cyberbullying Prevention Act with specific provisions.
- Establish cyber support cells in colleges and schools, according to UGC guidelines.
- Assign Grievance Redressal officers in social media companies to ensure local accountability.
- Encourage mental health care for victims through state-funded services. • Conduct mass legal literacy and awareness programmes among students and families.
Also, India might have a Digital Safety Commission similar to Australia’s eSafety Commissioner that will be tasked to enforce compliance, address complaints, and make digital harm assessments.
Unanswered Questions and Legal Gaps
So, the first question is, “Why doesn’t India have a law against Cyberbullying?” So, the answer to this question is that it is due to a conservative legislative mindset, especially following criticism of prior overbroad laws. However, the complex character of cyber harm requires framing social legislation that ensures constitutional rights.
Another question that arises is, “What would a model cyberbullying law be like?” The answer is that it would criminalize offences, provide time-bound grievance redressal, make platforms liable for default, and provide psychological counselling to victims. It would integrate criminal justice with civil relief and outreach for education.
The third question that arises is, “Why are victims of cyberbullying still hesitant to report?” It is because the enforcement remains unequal, the police are not digitally literate, and there is social stigma, particularly for women. As a result, without institutional support and speedy legal outcomes, most of the cases remain hidden.
So, “What can be done by Institutions?” The answer to that is that Schools, colleges, and workplaces need to adopt internal cyberbullying policies, provide counselling, and facilitate confidential reporting systems.
“How do these platforms help in preventing Cyberbullying?” Tech companies must not just moderate but also be legally obliged to remove and prevent harmful content, with consequences for doing nothing under the revised IT Rules.
Conclusion
The law regarding cyberbullying needs to shift from a reactive to a proactive approach. India is at a pivotal juncture to create laws that are compassionate, speedy, and affordable. Until then, the internet will continue to be a double-edged sword.
“Injustice Online is still injustice, it’s just hidden behind a screen.” Let us see to it that no voice goes unheard in the cyber wasteland.
References
- SCC Online, Dashboard, https://www.scconline.com/Members/Dashboard.aspx.
- Government of India, India Code, https://www.indiacode.nic.in. 3. LawBhoomi, Home, https://www.lawbhoomi.com.
- Cyberbullying and Legal Its Remedies, Prime Legal Blog, https://blog.primelegal.in/cyberbullying-and-its-legal-remedies/.
- Girisha Pathak & Dr. Vivek Kumar, Cyberbullying and Hate Speech on Social Media: Evaluating Legal Remedies for Victims in India, LIJDLR, https://lijdlr.com/2023/11/24/cyberbullying-and-hate-speech-on-social-media evaluating-legal-remedies-for-victims-in-india/.
- Janani, Cyberbullying and Legal Remedies, Law Vidhi, https://www.lawvidhi.com/cyberbullying-and-legal-remedies/.
- Shreya Sharma, Cyberbullying and Legal Remedy, Law Article, https://lawarticle.in/cyberbullying-and-legal-remedy/.
[1] Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000, § 66C, India Code (2000).
[2] Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000, § 66D, India Code (2000).
[3] Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000, § 67, India Code (2000).
[4] Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000, § 67 A, India Code (2000).
[5] Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000, § 67 B, India Code (2000).
[6] Indian Penal Code, No. 45 of 1860, § 354D, India Code (1860).
[7] Indian Penal Code, No. 45 of 1860, § 499 & 500, India Code (1860).
[8] Indian Penal Code, No. 45 of 1860, § 507, India Code (1860).
[9] Indian Penal Code, No. 45 of 1860, § 509, India Code (1860).
[10] Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1
[11] Shubham Bansal v. State of NCT Delhi, (2019) 265 DLT 454
