This article is written by Sarthak Mundra, Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA, 2nd Year BBA. LL.B student, during his internship at LeDroit India.
KEYWORDS: Online Defamation, Cyberbullying, Freedom of Speech, Privacy, Social Media, Liability.
ABSTRACT
Modern digital society is facing major problems with cyberbullying and online defamation which unavoidably invoke legal disputes and freedom of speech conflicts and privacy violations. Through electronic media platforms such as social media and blogging spaces people can damage another person’s good reputation by spreading untrue statements. Through online platforms cyberbullying emerges as the practice of systematic harassment which includes intimidation. Digital platforms that allow anonymous posting enable wrongdoers to remain invisible while operating at such scale that law enforcement finds it difficult to investigate attacks or pursue legal consequences. The fast progression of modern technology exceeds existing legal frameworks which results in significant shortages when dealing with these challenges. Online defamation and cyberbullying are addressed through Indian Penal Code and Information Technology Act yet enforcement efforts usually come out weak. Internationally, the solutions vary widely: In United States law intermediary protections stand strong but under European Union legislation online platforms must actively perform certain duties. This article examines the intricacies of online defamation and cyberbullying through their definitions, applicable legal provisions, judicial interpretations, and emerging policy directions. Based on a critical review of Indian and global practices, it highlights the imperative for effective legislative frameworks that harmoniously balance accountability with the protection of free expression in the online environment.
INTRODUCTION
Internet indeed changed the way of communication, the way that people share information, and the interaction method. However, it opened new paths for misuse and harm. Online defamation is a modern twist on traditional defamation that involves a false statement or content published on a digital platform with an intention to ruin someone’s reputation. Online defamation is much more prevalent than traditional defamation, as information is disseminated instantly, and social media, blog, and website information is distributed globally. Similarly, there has developed an even more serious phenomenon known as cyberbullying-the repeated harassment, intimidation, or abusive behavior directed at an individual through electronic means. This can assume various forms, like malicious rumor-mongering, threatening messages, doxxing, or trolling; since most of these leave a victim vulnerable to psychological and emotional abuse. The anonymity of the internet and its borderless nature complicate matters additionally, making it difficult to trace such offenders and enforce accountability. In this context, the rights to free speech and protection from abuse are in a serious state of disequilibrium between them both from the legal as well as ethical standpoints. This article critically evaluates the issues against these definitions in terms of existing Indian and international jurisprudence, judicial interpretation, policy, and regulatory trend to see to what end and with which consequence for individuals and society more generally.
MEANING AND ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF ONLINE DEFAMATION
The digital adaptation of traditional defamation laws appears through online defamation. As internet communication became a dominant force it became a prime outlet for abusing speech through reputational attacks. The chapter examines various aspects of online defamation across Indian law supplements its definition through judicial pronouncements and relevant legal provisions. In comparison between the traditional defamation and online defamation, one must recognize that digital communication heightens the speed and reach of potential harmful statements. To establish a statement as defamatory in the digital world, there are three requirements that need to be met:
1. Falseness of the Statement: The statement, being one, must be false. Being a statement of fact or opinion, the statement cannot be said to be defamatory. Though sometimes intent may be involved, the test of falsity is paramount in these cases.
Example: If a person falsely accuses another of stealing something on a public social media and people start considering the accused to be dishonest, then it becomes defamation.
2. Publication: The lie has to be conveyed to at least one third party besides the victim of defamation. In cyberspace, it would encompass a social media post, a blog, or a posting in a discussion forum. Even a private message would be held libelous if forwarded or leaked.
Example: A false WhatsApp group message accusing a colleague of some impropriety sent to other members of the group would be held as published.
3. Damage to Reputation: The defamatory utterance should have resulted in reputational loss. Courts examine the effect of the statement on the way the person is viewed by society or particular groups.
Example: A tweet that goes viral stating that a public figure commited fraud gets someone public backlash; this damages the reputation of the individual and satisfies this element.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK RELATED TO THE ONLINE DEFAMATION:
Indian legal structure has taken care of issues of cyber defamation by referring to the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act). It enlivens criminal and civil remedies with an equal balance of free speech ethos and right to reputation.
Indian Penal Code, 1860/Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: The IPC/BNS provides lucid provisions which have been implemented to meet defamation:
Section 499 of IPC: This section describes defamation. It includes spoken, written, and visual matter that harms a person’s reputation. This would include posting, tweeting, blogging, and video material online. The section also lists exceptions: the truth made for the public good or fair criticism of public conduct.
Section 500 IPC: This section provides for the punishment of defamation, which may be simple imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or which may also include a fine, or both. It applies to both online and offline acts of defamation.
The above both provisions are replaced by Section 356 of BNS, 2023.
Information Technology Act, 2000: The IT Act complements the IPC by providing for intermediary liability and digital offenses:
Section 66A of IT Act: This was the section which criminalized offensive content on the Internet. The Supreme Court of India in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) had struck it down as vague and chocking free speech. The judgment however, clarified that other provisions of the IPC like Section 499, are applicable to online defamation.
Section 79 of IT Act: It implies immunity to intermediaries such as social media. Provided that such intermediaries act diligently to remove defamatory content when brought to their notice. But the immunity offered is only in case the platform acts in accordance with due diligence guidelines.
KEY JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
The Indian Supreme Court finally struck down a provision under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000 as grossly arbitrary and manifest in nature, with complete infraction of free speech as laid down under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. Most importantly, though declaring Section 66A unconstitutional, the court made it clear that section 499, Indian Penal Code still applies to online defamation. It declared in this respect that it is what actually needs proper well-defined laws to regulate the content online which does not unduly infringe free speech.
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016)
According to the judgment Section 499 and Section 500 IPC remain constitutionally valid to establish a precarious balance between free speech rights and individual reputation protection. Rackea Judicial evaluated Reputation Rights as a key component under Article 21’s ‘Right to Life’ therefore it requires safeguards to protect defamatory material disseminated digitally or traditionally. Personal dignity needs the law of defamation as defined by the court in modern digital society.
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
This landmark judgment set the right to privacy as being part and parcel of a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Although it was not directly related to defamation, it is very pertinent for an online defamation case where issues of privacy and reputation intersect. It is now of critical importance for privacy rights, approaching defamation within digital contexts. It suggests there is a need to balance personal privacy with public discourse.
CYBERBULLYING: A THREAT TO DIGITAL AGE
Critical questions for the digital age include how social media platforms facilitate or mitigate cyberbullying. Cyberbullying is that kind of online harassment, intimidation, and emotional abuse leading to extreme psychological and social problems. On the other hand, governmental courts around the world face criticism over reconciliation of balance between free speech, its accountability. This chapter covers the multifaceted character of cyberbullying, liabilities on social network sites, and judicial and legal frameworks in India and around the world.
Forms of Cyberbullying:
- Trolling: Trolling is an act of aggressive harassment by the usage of abusive commentaries for achieving emotional distress. Trolls prefer controversial subjects so that they can abuse the reputation and well-being of people, particularly public personalities or activists.
Example: A famous journalist continues to face hate comments along with threats even after the release of his article discussing controversial social issues.
- Cyberstalking: Cyberstalking is the stalking of someone’s activities on the internet that is linked with the threat and invasion of behavior. If it goes unchecked, then it can cause even physical danger.
Example: A woman tracked on all of her social networking accounts by some unknown stalker sending unwanted messages and threats.
- Doxxing: Doxxing refers to the publishing of personal details without permission with the intent to scare or otherwise harm a particular person. Most of the time, it keeps the victims in an exposed position against threats in real life.
Example: Hacker discloses the private details of a whistleblower, which in turn puts that person into the public’s firing line and increases the risks against safety.
LEGAL PROVISIONS AGAINST CYBERBULLYING IN INDIA
India has other laws like Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act, 2000, relating to cyberbullying. But the problem of enforcement and the lack of knowledge makes them ineffective quite often.
- Indian Penal Code (IPC)/ Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023
Section 354A IPC/ Section 74 BNS: The sexual harassment will include unwelcome comments or advances on the internet, especially women.
Section 507 IPC/ Section 351 BNS: Criminal intimidation through anonymous communication is another usual feature of cyberbullying.
- Information Technology Act, 2000
Section 66C of IT Act : Targets identity theft, especially where it relates to creating fake profiles as well for bully purpose.
Section 66E of IT Act: Violation of privacy. Also, capturing anyone’s picture/video without him willing
RELEVANT JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS
Smt. Aparna Bhat v. State of MP (2021)
This case had highlighted the importance of strong legal remedy available to the victim against online harassment and stressed the responsibility of law enforcement authorities to act quickly.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015)
This is on free speech, but indirectly resonates with the cyberbullying law by striking down vague provisions that make genuine grievances being made impossible.
EMERGING TRENDS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In particular, emerging trends indicate a significant role of technology and an always shifting legal framework when handling online defamation and cyberbullying. According to most research experts, AI has become one of the most significant content moderation tools through quick identification and removals of harmful content. Generally, AI machines rely on natural language processing to discern context and intent and pose challenges such as false positives, algorithmic bias, and risks of censorship. This is the effective regulation which would require AI moderation along with human oversight and transparency of algorithms.
The mechanisms to be bettered would have to be strong enough to meet the dynamic nature of online interaction. It will require mechanisms to impose penalties on recidivists in quicker grievance redressal, and support systems to the victims of crime. This would be achieved through international data-sharing agreements, such as the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, meeting jurisdictional challenges.
All these are valuable avenues for India to follow: global practices, the EU’s Digital Services Act, and Australia’s eSafety model. With the help of technology and law, revising legal structures will be balanced enough to protect individual rights while freedom of speech is retained in the digital world.
CONCLUSION
Online defamation and cyberbullying lie at the heart of critical gaps in the traditional legal framework-that is, if it remains static across developing technological advancements and global internet connectivity. Indian law-areas such as the IPC and IT Act-provide a foundational framework to build from, but new issues like anonymity, limited jurisdiction, and content dissemination speed call for more nimble approaches. The courts of Shreya Singhal and Subramanian Swamy have created appropriate judicial opinions which protect both free speech and hold people accountable. Decisive content management powered by rightly implemented AI technology would strengthen regulatory approaches although lax implementation could trigger informational blockages and prejudiced outcomes. Some other measures required for the journey against the subtle ways of the digital world include more stringent legal measures, quicker mechanisms for grievance redressal, and much more cooperation internationally. It will guarantee policymakers an equal balance of retaining the dignity of the individual with freedom of speech in this continuously changing digital sphere.
REFERENCES
- The Indian Penal Code, No. 45 of 1860, India Code (1860).
- The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, No. 45 of 2023, India Code (2023).
- The Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000, India Code (2000).
- Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 S.C.C. 1 (India), Legalstix Law School | Blogs | Shreya Singhal v Union of India AIR 2015 SC 1523
- Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 S.C.C. 221 (India), Subramanian Swamy v Union of India
- Facebook India Online Services v. Surinder Malik, 2018 S.C.C. OnLine Del 7181 (India), Facebook Inc vs Surinder Malik & Ors on 28 August, 2019
- Aparna Chandra, Freedom of Speech and Intermediary Liability in India, 12 Nat’l L.J. 56 (2021).
- Pranesh Prakash, Regulating Social Media Platforms: Balancing Free Speech and Accountability, The Wire (2022), https://thewire.in.
- European Commission, The Digital Services Act, 2022, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-services-act.
- K.D. Gaur, Criminal Law: Cases and Materials 10th ed. (LexisNexis, 2022).
- Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code 36th ed. (LexisNexis, 2022).
- K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 S.C.C. 1 (India), Case Summary: Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India, 2017 – LawLex.Org
- Smt. Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2021) 5 S.C.C. 535 (India), Aparna Bhat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 March, 2021
