top of page



Cyberstalking" looms ominously as a lethal expression of online harassment in the digital age, as individuals are constantly pursued, tracked, and intimidated through electronic channels. This malicious behavior exploits the internet's vast, often anonymous nature, spreading far and wide to ruin lives and violate personal boundaries.

As technology becomes more and more integrated into our daily lives, the rise in cyberstalking instances raises serious concerns. Social media platforms, online forums, and digital communication channels provide criminals with both the tools and the cover to exploit weaknesses, resulting in real-world effects that extend far beyond the digital sphere. The experiences of victims caught in the antagonistic web of cyberstalking are marked by emotional pain and a pervasive sense of violation.

Cyberstalking legislation has become a key reaction to this new threat. The legislation aims to lay out and prohibit cyberstalking behaviors, to provide effective jurisdiction and enforcement procedures in the vast global digital realm, and to provide strong protections for victims negotiating the complex convergence of technology and personal security. This legislative framework seeks to ensure that the digital age remains a space for connection and expression rather than a breeding ground for fear and intimidation by striking a delicate balance between preserving the open nature of the internet and shielding individuals from the shadows of cyberstalking.


Cyberstalking is the use of electronic means, such as the Internet, to stalk or harass an individual or group of individuals. Threats, sex solicitation, false accusations, defamation, slander, libel, identity theft, and vandalism are all examples of cyberstalking. Because both are expressions of a desire to control, intimidate, or manipulate a victim, cyberstalking is frequently used in conjunction with offline stalking. A cyberstalker can be someone the victim knows or a total stranger, and it is a criminal offense.


Cyberstalking encompasses a range of troubling behaviors, including unwanted and persistent online communication that inflicts distress through repeated emails, messages, or comments. Additionally, perpetrators may employ monitoring and surveillance tactics, tracking the victim's online activities or resorting to spyware to obtain personal data without consent. Impersonation further characterizes cyberstalking, as individuals may fabricate fake profiles or assume the victim's identity online, aiming to disseminate false information and tarnish their reputation. Intimidation and threats are prevalent features of cyberstalking, involving overt coercive tactics designed to instill fear in the victim. 

Furthermore, cyberstalks may invade private areas by breaching the victim's email or social media accounts, violating their privacy and fostering a pervasive sense of vulnerability. These tactics collectively illustrate the multifaceted and insidious nature of cyberstalking, highlighting the need for comprehensive legal frameworks to address and prevent such malicious online behaviors2.


Distinguishing cyberstalking from online harassment hinges on several key factors. Unlike the broader and often more generalized nature of online harassment, cyberstalking is marked by a persistent, repetitive pattern of unwanted online behavior over an extended period. Importantly, the distinguishing feature lies in the intent; cyberstalking transcends mere annoyance, encompassing a deliberate aim to instill fear, distress, or harm in the victim. 

Further setting cyberstalking apart is its specificity of targeting, often focusing on a particular individual rather than a broader audience. Notably, cyberstalking's potential for offline consequences, such as physical harm or profound emotional distress, underscores its severity compared to online harassment confined to the digital realm. Legal definitions align with these distinctions, emphasizing explicit intent and the repeated, unwarranted nature of cyberstalking behaviors to address and prevent this insidious form of online victimization.


Section 354D of IPC: Stalking

Enacted after the 2013 Delhi gang rape case, Section 354D criminalizes stalking, including online monitoring of a woman's activities. Criticized for gender bias, it focuses solely on female victims and lacks clarity on monitoring means, leaving room for exploitation.

Section 292 of IPC: Obscenity

Addressing obscenity, Section 292 targets cyberstalking involving sexually explicit content transmission. Effectiveness depends on proving the stalker's harmful intent, potentially limiting its applicability to the complexities of online communication4.

Section 507 of IPC: Criminal Intimidation 

Section 507 tackles criminal intimidation through anonymous communication in cyberstalking, maintaining the stalker's anonymity. Despite this provision, online anonymity remains a challenge for legal enforcement4.

Section 509 of IPC: Violation of Privacy

Section 509 addresses the violation of a woman's privacy in cyberstalking, yet it's criticized for gender bias and faces challenges in online contexts where traditional communication norms may not apply, allowing cyberstalkers to evade punishment4.

Information Technology Act, 2000

Section 67: Prosecutes stalkers using electronic means to broadcast obscene information about the victim with the intent to harass.

Section 67A: Criminalizes the electronic distribution of sexually explicit information by stalkers, specifying penalties.

Section 67B: Targets stalkers spreading information showing minors engaged in sexual behavior to frighten them, focusing on protecting minors.

Section 66E (IT Act) and Section 354C (IPC): Address voyeurism, making it illegal to release intimate photos online without consent. While Section 66E is gender-neutral, Section 354C emphasizes protection for women against voyeuristic acts4.


1. Shreya Singhal v. UOI

In this landmark case, the Supreme Court challenged the validity of Section 66A of the IT Act. Two women were arrested under this section for posting comments on Facebook. The Court ruled that Section 66A restricted freedom of speech, emphasizing the importance of discussion and advocacy. It found the section capable of stifling all forms of communication and lacking a distinction between advocacy and incitement. While not violating Article 14, the Court declared it unconstitutional on substantive grounds, highlighting the need for clear legal distinctions.

2. Shamsher Singh Verma v. State of Haryana

This case established that a Compact Disc is considered a document. It clarified that personal admission or denial concerning a document under Section 294(1) of CrPC need not be obtained personally from the accused, complainant, or witness5.

3. Syed Asifuddin and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.

Addressing ESN (Electronic Serial Number) manipulation, the court affirmed that a telephone handset falls under the definition of a "computer" as per Section 2(1)(i) of the IT Act. Alteration of ESN was deemed an offense under Section 65, as it allowed unauthorized use by other service providers5.

4. Shankar v. State Rep

The petitioner sought to quash a charge sheet for unauthorized access to a protected system. The Court upheld the charge, emphasizing that the accused's status as a service provider did not warrant quashing, and the law concerning the non-granting of sanction of prosecution under Section 72 of the IT Act was applicable.

6. Avnish Bajaj v. State (NCT) of Delhi

CEO of, Avnish Bajaj, was arrested under Section 67 of the IT Act for cyber pornography. The Court noted his non-involvement but highlighted the platform's revenue generation, indicating the need for platforms to ensure content legality5.


Globally, the legislative response to cyberstalking varies, reflecting the intricate nature of online harassment. In the United States, federal laws such as the Violence Against Women Act address cyberstalking, while individual states have their statutes. The European Union, under the General Data Protection Regulation, strengthens privacy rights. The United Kingdom employs the Protection from Harassment Act, and Australia utilizes the Criminal Code Act 1995. 

Canada, India, Japan, South Africa, and Singapore have enacted laws specifically addressing cyberstalking. International collaboration, exemplified by the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, seeks to harmonize legislation. The legislative landscape is dynamic, adapting to evolving technology, emphasizing the global imperative for comprehensive legal frameworks to combat cyberstalking and online harassment. It's crucial to stay updated with current legal developments6.


The blog concludes that cyberstalking legislation serves as the virtual realm's guardian, offering protection against a rising tide of online vengeance in the ever-changing digital landscape. The examination of India's legal framework, in conjunction with landmark cases, sheds light on the challenges and advancements in combating cyberstalking. The global picture emphasizes the importance of working together to create effective legislation. As technology advances, cyberstalking legislation must adapt to strike a balance between protecting online freedom and shielding individuals from cyber threats. Finally, the blog advocates for a vigilant and adaptive legal approach to combating cyberstalking's complex and insidious nature in the digital age.

15 views0 comments


bottom of page