5.2.1 Constitutional source of the right
Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to life and the right to live with dignity. Further, the Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020), expanded the scope of Article 19 to include freedom of expression on the internet. However, the right to safe online spaces has not been expressly recognized by the Supreme Court, although various case laws have acknowledged certain facets that fall within its ambit.
In the past, the Supreme Court has taken action against threats in digital spaces that pose a danger to an individual’s life and safety. In Sneha Kalita v. Union of India (2017), the apex court recognized that the Blue Whale challenge (in which tasks were administered to players over a 50-day period, and included elements of self-harm, in some cases, leading to suicide) led to death of many individuals by suicide, and directed social media and email sites to remove all links to it. Similarly, in In re: Prajwala (2015), a non-governmental organization (NGO) approached the Supreme Court raising concerns about the distribution of videos depicting sexual violence on the internet. A suo moto petition was registered, and the court directed that a committee be constituted to ascertain the feasibility of ensuring that videos depicting rape, gang rape, and child pornography are not available for circulation.
While the jurisprudence regarding the protection of rights in digital spaces is nascent, there are strong indications from the judiciary that the rights recognized in physical spaces, such as the right to dignity, the right to privacy, the right to just and humane conditions of work, and the prohibition of sexual harassment of women in the workplace, etc., also extend to online spaces. Recently, in a case of NCIID, the Delhi High Court observed that gender-based violence (GBV) constitutes an infringement of privacy, including information privacy as laid down in the Puttaswamy case. In Silajit Guha v. Sikkim University and Ors (2019), the Sikkim High Court noted that the term ‘workplace’ under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) is inclusive rather than exclusive. A similar observation was made by the Bombay High Court in Jaya Kodate v. Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University (2014). The court said that the definition of a workplace under the POSH Act is deliberately kept wide to ensure that no area where women may be subjected to sexual harassment is left unattended. These rulings provide a strong basis to extend the legal protections against violence accorded to women in offline spaces to online spaces as well.