Case Studies

1.1 Facts

Sanjana is an animal lover who has been contributing to animal welfare for the past 15 years. She is well known in her locality and among other animal activists. Following a disagreement with her neighbor, Jatin, on the issue of feeding the dogs in their neighborhood, Sanjana found herself at the receiving end of incessant and prolonged harassment on several social media platforms. To begin with, Jatin posted several messages on Facebook groups, alleging that Sanjana has been secretly poisoning the dogs in their society. He called her a “witch” and a “dog murderer”, and claimed she’s a hypocrite who calls herself an animal activist while secretly abusing every puppy she sees. The issue snowballed once people began to respond to Jatin’s post, threatening Sanjana with physical harm and trolling her using profanity. Thereafter, Jatin created several WhatsApp groups where he posted similar comments about her and shared her phone number with unknown individuals who then proceeded to call and harass Sanjana during odd hours. He followed this up by posting video recordings on Facebook which maligned Sanjana and exacerbated the attacks against her. Among those tagged in the concerned Facebook posts, several were common acquaintances of Sanjana and Jatin and were part of animal welfare groups. These false and one-sided allegations prompted those in the animal welfare fraternity to regard Sanjana with skepticism and cut ties with her. Amid the relentless attacks, Sanjana lodged a complaint with the police, who registered a First Information Report (FIR) arraigning Jatin as the prime accused and several others as unknown accused.

1.2 What are the issues involved?

1. Trolling: Sanjana was subjected to online trolling by Jatin who intentionally posted inflammatory, irrelevant, and offensive comments against Sanjana to antagonize her. This is the characteristic conduct of a troll.¹ Gurumurthy, A., & Dasarathy, A. (2022). Profitable Provocations. A Study of Abuse and Misogynistic Trolling on Twitter Directed at Indian Women in Public-political Life, p. 40. IT for Change. https://itforchange.net/sites/default/files/2132/ITfC-Twitter-Report-Profitable-Provocations.pdfFurther, Jatin’s comments unleashed mass trolling against Sanjana by several others who threatened, harassed, and used profanities against her.
2. Doxxing: Doxxing refers to the act of publishing personal or identifying information or details about a person without that person’s consent.²Douglas, D.M. (2016). Doxxing: A Conceptual Analysis. Ethics and Informational Technology, 18, pp. 199-210. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10676-016-9406-0.pdf As Jatin shared her personal information (in this case, her phone number) with unknown individuals without Sanjana’s consent, resulting in uninvited calls and further harassment, his actions can be categorized as doxxing. 
   
3. Criminal intimidation: Sanjana faced threats of physical harm from several people following Jatin’s comments and posts, which is an act of criminal intimidation as it involves threats from individuals that may endanger a “person, their reputation or property”. She also received harassing calls at odd hours.

1.3 Which laws are applicable?

1. Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): The offensive, pejorative, and humiliating comments and content posted by Jatin, and the false allegations he made against Sanjana, led the animal welfare fraternity to regard her with skepticism and cut ties with her. This shows that the online trolling by Jatin and others had lowered the estimation of Sanjana’s moral and intellectual character in the eyes of others. This constitutes defamation under Section 499 of the IPC,³The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 499.which is punishable under Section 500.⁴The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 500.
2. Section 509 of the IPC: By sharing Sanjana’s phone number, which is personal information, with unknown individuals, Jatin intruded into her privacy, specifically her informational privacy, which was recognized as a fundamental right by the Supreme Court in Retd. Justice KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017).⁵K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1. Hence, Jatin committed an offense under Section 509 of the IPC, thereby outraging her modesty which is a key element of this offence, thus also intruding into the privacy of a woman.⁶The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 509.
3. Sections 503, 506, and 507 of the IPC: As part of the online trolling, Sanjana was threatened with physical harm by several persons. She also received harassing calls from unknown numbers at odd times. These acts were intended to cause her alarm. That constitutes the offense of criminal intimidation under Section 503 of the IPC,⁷The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 503. which is punishable under Section 506.⁸The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 506.Further, anyone who used anonymized online identities to threaten Sanjana could be booked under Section 507 of the IPC for criminal intimidation by anonymous communication.⁹The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 507.

1.4 What other remedies are available to the complainant?

Apart from criminal prosecution, Sanjana could also file a civil suit for damages for defamation against Jatin and others. She could claim damages for the mental agony caused by the persistent, vitriolic, and threatening posts and comments by Jatin and other accused persons. Further, she could ask for an injunction directing the defendants, Jatin and others, to withdraw the allegations and accusations made against her on Facebook and WhatsApp.

2.1 Facts

Mumbai resident Meena had posted pictures of herself on her private Facebook and Instagram accounts. One day, she discovered that these photos were, without her knowledge, morphed in a sexual manner and uploaded on a pornographic website with an offensive and sexually suggestive caption. This was despite the fact that Meena had the requisite privacy settings on her account. Meena registered a complaint with the police and the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal. Upon investigation, the police found that the culprits, Sajan and Wilson, were Meena’s colleagues who, in the past, had disagreements and arguments with her about work. By posting her photos on the pornographic website, they wanted to take revenge against Meena.

The police filed a charge sheet against Sajan and Wilson for offenses under Section 67, 67A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 (IT Act), as well as under Sections 292, 354A, 509, 465 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2.2 What are the issues involved?

1. Non-consensual intimate image distribution (NCIID): Meena’s images, taken from her private Facebook and Instagram accounts, were shared by her colleagues on a pornographic website without her consent. The fact that she shared those images only through her private social media accounts, indicates that she had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to them. Hence, the dissemination of those images on a pornographic website is a serious intrusion into her privacy and bodily integrity, as Meena no longer has the autonomy to control who can view them, unlike on her private social media accounts.
2. Doxxing: Doxxing refers to the act of publishing personal or identifying information or details about a person without that person’s consent. ¹⁰Douglas, D.M. (2016). Doxxing: A Conceptual Analysis. Ethics and Informational Technology, 18,199-210. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10676-016-9406-0.pdf In this case, Meena's morphed images could be used to identify her and could lead to potential harm to her person or reputation. By publishing these personal images without her consent, the accused committed the offense of doxxing.
3. Morphing: The photographs taken from Meena’s private social media accounts were morphed in a sexual way before being posted on the pornographic website.
4. Online sexual harassment: The photographs were posted on a pornographic website with an offensive and sexually suggestive caption. The unwelcome sexual attention and comments that followed constitute online sexual harassment.¹¹Barak, A. (2005). Sexual Harassment on the Internet. Social Science Computer Review, 23(1), pp. 77–92. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0894439304271540
5. Voyeurism: In State of West Bengal v. Animesh Boxi (2018),¹²State of West Bengal v. Animesh Boxi, C.R.M. No. 11806, judgment dated 3 January, 2018, The Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur. the court viewed the act of taking private images from the device of a woman to be an act of voyeurism. The same logic applies here, as Sajan and Wilson can also be charged with voyeurism for downloading Meena’s photographs from her private social media accounts, which were reasonably secured from viewing by others.

2.3 Which laws are applicable?

1. Section 463 of the IPC: The morphing of Meena’s images by the accused constitutes an offense under Section 463 of the IPC,¹³The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 463. which penalizes the creation of a false electronic record with the intent to cause damage or injury to a person. The offence is punishable under Section 465 with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.¹⁴The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 465.
2. Section 509 of the IPC: This Section criminalizes acts committed with the intent to outrage the modesty of a woman and intrude into her privacy. Posting Meena’s images on a pornographic website is an intrusion into her privacy and bodily integrity, as she had no control over who could see and download her images. This act not only affects her expression but undermines her dignity and erodes her agency and autonomy. As such, it constitutes an offense under Section 509 of the IPC.¹⁵The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 509.
3. Section 354A of the IPC: This Section penalizes the act of making sexually colored remarks.¹⁶The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 354A. Meena’s pictures were posted on the pornographic website with an offensive and sexually suggestive caption, thus coming under the ambit of this section.
4. Section 354C of the IPC: This Section penalizes voyeurism, defining it as the act of capturing the image of a woman engaged in a private act, in circumstances where she would not expect to be observed by the perpetrator or any other person on his behalf, and the act of disseminating such images.¹⁷The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 354C. Applying the reasoning used in the Animesh Boxi (2018) case,¹⁸State of West Bengal v. Animesh Boxi, C.R.M. No. 11806, judgment dated 3 January, 2018, The Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur. taking Meena’s photos from her private social media accounts, over which she had a reasonable expectation of privacy, amounts to voyeurism. Hence, the accused are liable to be prosecuted under this Section.
5. Section 66E of the IT Act: This Section criminalizes the violation of privacy by non-consensual publication and transmission of images of private parts of an individual.¹⁹ The Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 66E. As such, an offense committed under this provision is a violation of the right to privacy, which is a fundamental right guaranteed to every citizen. While a literal reading of the Section limits its application only to cases where the private parts of a person are shown, the crux of the Section is to protect the privacy and bodily integrity of the victim where she has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The application of this Section should, therefore, be extended by the court to cover instances such as this particular scenario, through purposive interpretation (i.e., to look at the purpose of the law while interpreting it), as attempted in the Animesh Boxi (2018) case²⁰State of West Bengal v. Animesh Boxi, C.R.M. No. 11806, judgment dated 3 January, 2018, The Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur.. While the charge sheet was filed under Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act, the court can apply Section 66E because it takes a rather gender-sensitive approach. The implication of applying Section 67, which speaks of “material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons”,²¹The Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 67. is that the photograph itself is problematic, rather than the fact that it was uploaded on a pornographic website without Meena’s consent or knowledge. In contrast, Section 66E penalizes the non-consensual publication of such a photograph and does not consider the photograph in itself as problematic.

2.4 What other remedies are available to the complainant?

Penal sanctions can do very little to redress the harm suffered by Meena if the relevant content continues to be published on the pornographic website and circulated on the internet. Hence, while the trial is on, the court should direct law enforcement agencies to take steps to remove or disable access to the offending content from all websites and online platforms. It should also direct search engines and other internet intermediaries involved to de-index all such offending content from their search results, and adopt proactive measures to identify and remove identical or similar content from different websites. The court can make such a direction to internet intermediaries under Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules).²²The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, Rule 3(1)(d); The Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 79(2)(b).

3.1 Facts

Tara was on her way to her math tuition when her friend Aniket forced her to enter his car. He gave her a cold drink which was spiked with an intoxicant, causing Tara to lose consciousness after drinking it. Aniket then had sexual intercourse with the unconscious Tara and recorded an intimate video of her without her consent. Later, he used this video to blackmail and extort money from her. But after receiving the money, he still circulated the video on social media, causing Tara immense mental trauma.

Following Tara’s complaint, the police arrested Aniket and filed a charge sheet under Sections 376, 509, 384, 385, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act.

3.2 What are the issues involved?

1. Rape: Aniket committed non-consensual sexual intercourse with Tara while she was unconscious and incapable of giving consent.
2. Non-consensual distribution of intimate images: Aniket recorded an intimate video of Tara and circulated the same on social media without her consent.
3. Intimidation and extortion: Aniket threatened to circulate Tara’s intimate video online to extort money from her.

3.3 Which laws are applicable?

1. Sections 375 and 376 of the IPC: Aniket engaged in sexual intercourse with Tara when she was unconscious and incapable of giving consent. This constitutes rape under Section 375 of the IPC,²³The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 375. which is punishable under Section 376.²⁴The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 376.
2. Section 509 of the IPC: By engaging in sexual intercourse without Tara’s consent, recording her intimate videos, and circulating them online, Aniket intruded into her privacy and bodily integrity. That is an offense under Section 509 of the IPC.²⁵The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 509.
3. Sections 383, 384, and 385 of the IPC: Section 383 of the IPC penalizes extortion, which is defined as the act of intentionally putting a "person in fear of any injury to that person or to any other, and thereby dishonestly inducing such person to deliver to any person any property or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security”.²⁶The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 383. In this case, Aniket intentionally made Tara fear that he would circulate her intimate video unless she gave him money, which amounts to extortion under Section 383 and is punishable under Section 384.²⁷The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 384.Further, Aniket could also be convicted under Section 385, which penalizes the act of attempting to or inducing fear of injury in order to commit the offense of extortion. Injury is defined as any harm caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation, or property.²⁸The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 385. In this case, Aniket made Tara fear injury to her reputation and mental health for reasons mentioned above, and is, therefore, also liable to be punished under Section 385.
4. Sections 503 and 506 of the IPC: Aniket threatened Tara with circulating her intimate video and blackmailed her for money, which amounts to criminal intimidation under Section 503,²⁹The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 503. and is punishable under Section 506.³⁰The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 506.
5. Section 66E of the IT Act: This Section penalizes the capture, publishing, or transmission of an image or video of the private area of a person without that person’s consent, under circumstances violating her privacy.³¹The Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 66E. In this case, Aniket, after engaging in sexual intercourse with an unconscious Tara, captured an intimate video of her and circulated it on social media. In doing so, he violated Tara’s privacy and is liable to be punished under Section 66E of the IT Act. It is worth noting that while the charge sheet was filed under Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act,³²The Information Technology Act, 2000, Sections 67 and 67A. as pointed out in the previous case study, Section 66E is better suited to address the harm suffered by Tara, i.e., the violation of her privacy. Sections 67 and 67A seemingly adhere to the societal norm of constricting the expression of sexuality, particularly female sexuality. The Sections, therefore, do not address the privacy-related harms caused to the victim.

3.4 What other remedies are available to the complainant?

Unless Tara’s intimate images are taken down from social media platforms, they will continue to cause her injury even after Aniket is convicted and punished. For an effective remedy, the court, during the course of the trial, should direct the concerned social media intermediaries to take steps to remove the impugned video(s) from their platforms under Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules.³³The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, Rule 3(1)(d); The Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 79(2)(b).

4.1 Facts

Maya, a college student, started receiving WhatsApp messages from an unknown number. The sender professed love for Maya and kept up a continuous stream of messages throughout the day, including emojis, stickers, and requests to video call. When Maya blocked one number, the person used others to keep sending her similar messages. To escape the harassment, Maya was forced to deactivate WhatsApp altogether. A few days later, she received a Multimedia Messaging Services (MMS) file on her phone from yet another unknown number. When she opened the file, she was shocked to find a downblouse image of herself that someone captured at a wedding she recently attended in her neighborhood. Downblouse photography is where a covert camera is used to photograph women from above, focusing on the blouse in the hope of taking an image of the bra, cleavage, or indeed breasts.³⁴Gillespie, A.A. (2008). “Up-Skirts’’ and ‘‘Down-Blouses’’: Voyeurism and the Law. Criminal Law Review, n/a, pp. 370-382. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/9663206.pdf . On the basis of the photograph settings, she gathered that it had been taken, without her knowledge, at a wedding she had attended in the neighborhood. The MMS file was accompanied by a text that threatened to circulate the image online unless Maya agreed to meet the sender and spend a night with him.

Terrified, Maya immediately lodged a complaint with the police. Upon investigation, the police traced the unknown numbers used to message her to Suresh, who turned out to be Maya’s neighbor. The downblouse image of Maya was also found on his phone. Based on these findings, a charge sheet was filed under Sections 354D, 292, 509, 506, and 507 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and under Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 (IT Act).

4.2 What are the issues involved?

1. Cyberstalking: Suresh repeatedly contacted Maya via WhatsApp using several unknown numbers and attempted to foster personal interactions despite a clear indication of disinterest on her part.
2. Voyeurism: Suresh captured a private image of Maya. Though the setting of the image was a public place, the circumstances in which it was taken violated Maya’s reasonable expectation of privacy, thus constituting an act of voyeurism.
3. Online intimidation and threat: Suresh threatened Maya that he would circulate her downblouse image online if she did not meet and spend a night with him. This shows his intent to cause Maya alarm and thereby coerce her into agreeing with his demand.

4.3 Which laws are applicable?

1. Section 354D of the IPC: This Section provides for the offense of stalking, which includes, but is not limited to, an act or attempt to  contact a woman “in order to foster personal interaction with her despite clear indication of disinterest on her part”; and to monitor her use of the internet or other electronic communications.³⁵The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 354D. By persistently texting Maya over WhatsApp from several unknown numbers, sending her emojis and stickers, and asking her for video calls despite the fact that she blocked these numbers several times, Suresh committed the offense of stalking punishable under Section 354D of the IPC.
2. Section 354C of the IPC: This Section deals with voyeurism.³⁶The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 354C. A private act, under Explanation 1 to the Section, includes “An act of watching carried out in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy, and where the victim’s genitals, posterior or breasts are exposed or covered only in underwear; or the victim is using a lavatory; or the victim is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in public.”³⁷The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Explanation 1 to Section 354C. Even though Suresh took the downblouse image of Maya in a public place, she could be said to have had a reasonable expectation that no one would capture images of her private parts in that space. Therefore, Suresh could be convicted for voyeurism under Section 354C.
3. Section 509 of the IPC: Suresh’s act of capturing the downblouse image of Maya constitutes an intrusion into her privacy, and is punishable under Section 509.³⁸The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 509.
4. Section 503, 506, and 507 of the IPC: Suresh threatened Maya with circulating her images online unless she met and spent a night with him. He did this with the intention to induce fear and force her to concede to his demand. Hence, Suresh committed the offense of criminal intimidation under Section 503,³⁹The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 503. which is punishable under Section 506.⁴⁰The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 506. Further, he sent the threatening messages using an unknown number and concealing his identity. Therefore, his actions are also punishable under Section 507 for criminal intimidation by anonymous communication.⁴¹The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 507.
5. Section 66E of the IT Act: Suresh violated Maya’s privacy by capturing the image of her private area without her consent, under circumstances where she expected privacy. Therefore, his actions are punishable under Section 66E of the IT Act.⁴²The Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 66E.

4.4 What other remedies are available to the complainant?

She could plead to the court to direct the authorities to remove her image from Suresh's mobile phone.⁴³The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, Rule3(1)(d); The Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 79(2)(b).

5.1 Facts

Kasturba is an independent journalist and writer whose work has included investigations into alleged crimes committed by public and government officials. A day after she had given a speech at an awards ceremony in India about how the freedom of speech in newsrooms was being stifled by the government, an online hate campaign was unleashed against her by supporters of the political party in power. In their comments and posts, the attackers mainly targeted her gender and caste identity. Raghavan, an influential political leader of a ruling party, wrote a post on a popular social media platform, saying that “Kasturba represents the cunning and dishonest nature of her community. These Dalit women deserve to be raped and burnt. Let’s do it.” This post went viral and gained traction as Raghavan’s supporters copied it verbatim and posted it from their own accounts.

Consequent to this online hate campaign, especially the one set off by Raghavan’s post, Kasturba received ridiculing and threatening messages, lost followers on her social media accounts, and was excluded from many important workplace assignments. After she lodged a police complaint against Raghavan, a charge sheet was filed under Sections 153A, 509, and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Sections 3(1)(r), (s), and (u) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC and ST Act).

5.2 What are the issues involved?

1. Caste- and gender-based hate speech: Raghavan’s post exposed Kasturba to threatening and abusive messages on social media, delegitimized her in the eyes of the public, and reduced her social standing and acceptance within society on the basis of her gender and caste identity.⁴⁴Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors, (2014) 11 SCC 477. His post had the effect of intensifying mass hatred against her, as was evident from the support it received. Hence, Raghavan’s speech amounted to both gender- and caste-based hate speech.
2. Online sexual harassment: Raghavan’s post attacked Kasturba on the basis of her gender, along with caste, and directed unwanted sexual attention at her and other women of her community by instigating his supporters to rape and burn them.⁴⁵Barak, A. (2005). Sexual Harassment on the Internet. Social Science Computer Review, 23(1), pp. 77–92. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0894439304271540 . The open call to rape these women amounts to sexual harassment.
3. Defamation: The online hate campaign unleashed against Kasturba, and Raghavan’s remarks in particular, lowered her reputation in society and undermined her legitimacy as a journalist.

5.3 Which laws are applicable?

1. Section 153A of the IPC: This Section makes it an offense to promote or attempt to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different caste or community groups, through words, either spoken or written.⁴⁶The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 153A. In this case, Raghavan described Dalit women like Kasturba as “cunning and dishonest” and declared that they “deserve to be raped and burnt”. This was a clear attempt to promote hatred against the Dalit community, and particularly Dalit women. The fact that his post found traction and validation among his supporters, with many copying and reposting it, strongly indicates that his attempt to promote hatred against Dalit women was successful. Although Raghavan’s post against Kasturba also constituted gender-based hate speech, Section 153A cannot be invoked to deal with this aspect as gender is not a protected category. However, his post amounts to sexual harassment and defamation, as discussed below.
2. Section 354A of the IPC: Raghavan’s remark that Dalit women like Kasturba should be “raped and burnt”, and his call to his supporters to execute this would be considered sexual harassment under Section 354A.⁴⁷The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 354A.
3. Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC: Raghavan’s imputation that Kasturba is representative of “the cunning and dishonest nature of her community” harms her reputation. This is evident from the fact that she lost social media followers, received ridiculing and threatening messages, and was excluded from important workplace assignments, thus affecting her legitimacy as a journalist and harming her reputation in the public eye. Therefore, Raghavan can be held guilty for defamation under Section 499,⁴⁸The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 499. which is punishable under Section 500.⁴⁹The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 500.
4. Sections 3(1)(r), (s), and (u) of the SC and ST Act: Raghavan’s act constitutes an offense under Sections 3(1) (r), (s), and (u) of the SC and ST Act. Section 3(1)(r) makes it punishable to intentionally insult or intimidate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, with the intent to humiliate them in any place within public view.⁵⁰The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3(1)(r). Section 3(1)(s) makes it punishable to abuse any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by their caste name in any place within public view.⁵¹The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3(1)(s). Finally, under Section 3(1)(u), it is an offense to promote feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill-will against members of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by words, either written or spoken, signs, visible representation, or otherwise.⁵²The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3(1)(u).

5.4 What other remedies are available to the complainant?

Kasturba could appeal to the court to direct the concerned social media platforms to redact the offensive post made by Raghavan, and other similar content posted by his supporters. The court could make this order under Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules).⁵³The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, Rule 3(1)(d); The Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 79(2)(b).

Apart from criminal prosecution, Kasturba could file a civil suit for defamation under Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and seek damages from Raghavan.