THE CONTEXT: The digital age has amplified the reach of harmful behaviors like cyberbullying, trolling, hate speech, and doxxing, with severe social and psychological consequences. In the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack, Himanshi Narwal, widow of slain Navy Lieutenant Vinay Narwal, faced vicious online harassment for advocating peace. At the same time, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri was trolled for diplomatic efforts, highlighting the toxic culture of online vigilantism.
India’s regulatory framework, primarily the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, struggles to address these evolving cybercrimes, necessitating urgent reforms.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: BALANCING FREE SPEECH AND DIGITAL SAFETY
-
- Cyberbullying regulation hinges on balancing Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) with Article 21 (right to life and dignity) of the Indian Constitution. The Harm Principle, articulated by John Stuart Mill, justifies restricting speech that causes harm, such as hate speech or doxxing, which infringe on victims’ privacy and safety.
- The Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015) judgment upheld Section 69A of the IT Act but emphasized procedural safeguards for content blocking, highlighting the need for transparent governance. Globally, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression (2024) advocates for proportionate regulations to curb online abuse without stifling dissent, guiding India’s approach to ethical governance.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
|
INDIAN LEGAL & POLICY LANDSCAPE
| Layer | Key Instruments | Gaps Identified |
|---|---|---|
| Substantive law | Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023: Sections 74, 75, 196, 351, 356. IT Act 2000: Sections 66C-E, 67. | No clause criminalises gender-neutral, repeat online harassment; “stalking” remains male-on-female & intent-centric. |
| Procedural safeguards | IT (Intermediary Guidelines & Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021, amended 2022—obligatory grievance officer; Grievance Appellate Committees (GACs) operational since 1 March 2023. | GAC orders lack transparency; disposal time averages 27 days—too slow for real-time abuse. |
| Content control | Section 69A (blocking) & § 79 safe harbour. Shreya Singhal (2015) upheld Section 69A but mandated reasoned orders. | Executive blocking orders often issued ex parte; users rarely informed—violates the Court’s proportionality test. |
| Privacy layer | Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 exempts “publicly available data”. | Ambiguity lets doxxers claim information was “already public”. |
INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSE SO FAR
-
- Indian Cyber-crime Coordination Centre (I4C) under MHA—coordinates 1930 helpline & Citizen Financial Cyber-Fraud Reporting System; has saved ₹1,127 crore since 2021 .
- Cyber Forensic Labs set up in 18 states; yet 98 percent of NCRP complaints still do not translate into FIRs.
- Cyber Jaagrookta Diwas (first Wednesday monthly) and Cyber Surakshit Bharat capacity-building modules (MeitY).
- NCPCR & NCW issue advisories but lack statutory enforcement powers.
GLOBAL BENCHMARKS
|
THE ISSUES:
-
- Normative Vacuum: No standalone “Online Safety Code” creating gender-neutral offences like doxxing, deep-fake extortion or coordinated inauthentic behaviour.
- Enforcement Deficit: Only 2 percent of 21 lakh NCRP complaints (2022-23) became FIRs; police cyber-cells face 40 percent vacancy in forensic posts.
- Jurisdictional Maze: Platforms domiciled abroad; data hosted offshore; Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) timelines average six months.
- Algorithmic Amplification: Profit-maximising recommender systems reward outrage, as documented in the Centre for the Study of Organised Hate audit of X (8,000 Indian accounts blocked post-Pahalgam).
- Victim-centric Barriers: Low digital literacy; social stigma deters reporting, especially among women (UNESCO 2023 survey: 73 percent self-censor after online abuse).
- Privacy-Speech Trade-off: DPDP Act’s “publicly available” clause dilutes informational privacy; Shreya Singhal’s safeguards not mirrored in data protection regime.
THE WAY FORWARD:
-
- Legislative Reforms: Enact a dedicated Cyberbullying Prevention Act, defining trolling, hate speech, and doxxing, with penalties up to 3 years imprisonment and fines. Amend the DPDP Act to clarify “publicly available data” and criminalize malicious data aggregation. Align with Shreya Singhal (2015) to ensure transparent takedown processes, promoting rule of law and digital safety.
- Strengthened Platform Accountability: Revise Intermediary Guidelines to mandate 24-hour content removal for reported cyberbullying, with ₹50 crore fines for non-compliance, inspired by Germany’s NetzDG. Introduce a Digital Accountability Tribunal to oversee platform grievances, ensuring transparent governance. Require platforms to disclose user identities in criminal cases, balancing anonymity with public safety.
- Technological Interventions: Develop an AI-powered National Cyberbullying Monitoring System under I4C to detect hate speech and doxxing in real-time, with 90% accuracy (IIT Madras, 2025). Mandate platforms to implement watermarking for harmful content, reducing virality. Fund open-source anti-trolling tools for SMEs, fostering technological equity.
- Capacity Building: Train 50,000 police officers and 1,000 judges in cyber forensics by 2027 through the National Police Academy and National Judicial Academy. Launch a Cyber Literacy Mission under Digital India, targeting 100 million users by 2028, to enhance digital skilling. Establish cybercrime cells in every district, boosting institutional capacity.
- Public Awareness Campaigns: Initiate a Safer Internet Campaign via MeitY, using regional languages to educate users on reporting cyberbullying, inspired by Australia’s eSafety Commissioner. Partner with NGOs to support victims, especially women and minorities, ensuring social justice. Leverage influencers to promote digital citizenship, reducing communal polarization.
- International Collaboration: Lead a UN Cybercrime Convention clause on cross-border trolling, building on India’s G20 Digital Economy Working Group (2023). Negotiate bilateral agreements with the EU and U.S. for data-sharing in cyberbullying cases, enhancing tech diplomacy. Join INTERPOL’s Cybercrime Taskforce to track global trolls, strengthening global competitiveness.
- Victim-Centric Support: Create a National Cyberbullying Helpline with 24/7 counseling and legal aid, modeled on the UK’s Revenge Porn Helpline. Integrate cyberbullying into the National Women’s Helpline (181) for gendered abuse, ensuring inclusive redressal. Offer compensation for victims under a Digital Harm Fund, upholding restorative justice.
THE CONCLUSION:
An integrated statute, independent regulator, capacity-building and algorithmic accountability can translate constitutional promises of dignity and equality into the digital realm—turning India’s demographic dividend into a “digi-demographic dividend”.
UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTION:
Q. Social media and encrypted messaging services pose a serious security challenge. What measures have been adopted at various levels to address the security implications of social media? Also, suggest any other remedies to address the problem. (2024)
MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
Q. India’s regulatory approach to cyber-bullying is reactive and piecemeal. Evaluate the existing legal-institutional framework and propose a comprehensive strategy that upholds free speech while ensuring online safety.
SOURCE:
Spread the Word