Bullying

Bullying could also be characterised as an intentional act by a
perpetrator which, although could not quantity to a legal offence,
causes ache or anguish or struggling to the sufferer, both
bodily or emotionally. The sufferer is normally on the mercy of
the perpetrator and the bully makes use of ways resembling name-calling or
intimidation or social ostracization to realize his or her objective.
Bullying could happen in each private and non-private areas. It
traumatises the sufferer and will lead to everlasting emotional
harm.

Traditional Approach to Bullying

The conventional strategy to bullying in academic establishments
and workplaces has been to brush it apart, with excuses resembling
‘boys shall be boys’ or ‘robust males do not
complain’, although it’s doable that bullying which entails
intimidation or the specter of violence may set off the offence of
assault¹ or battery.²

Examples of bullying which don’t tantamount to a conventional
legal offence are, classmates calling a college boy
‘fats’ or ‘silly’ or an worker being
shouted at by a senior or superior officer. When classmates
threaten or tough up one other within the college yard or when a
subordinate is threatened with the upcoming software of power or
is slapped, an offence is dedicated, although such actions normally go
unpunished.

As an increasing number of ladies enter workplaces, ladies too turn out to be
targets for bullying in such workplaces. At instances, bullying takes
the type of sexual harassment.

Cyber Bullying

Cyber bullying refers to bullying or harassment of any sort
inflicted by means of digital or communication units resembling
computer systems, cellphones, laptops, and normally contain textual content
messages, cellphone calls, e-mails, instantaneous messengers, social media
platforms, or chat rooms. It ranges from the posting of hurtful
phrases, derogatory feedback, pretend info on public boards or
blogs to threats to rape or kill.

The most often used definition of cyber bullying is
‘an aggressive, intentional act or behaviour that’s
carried out by a bunch or a person, utilizing digital types of
contact, repeatedly and time beyond regulation towards a sufferer who can’t simply
defend him or herself.‘³

The Anonymous Bully

Bullying historically concerned a stronger individual asserting his
or her superiority over a weaker individual to his or her benefit.
With the appearance of the web, it has turn out to be doable for a
individual with neither superior bodily energy nor monetary clout
to bully one other. In many circumstances, the bully makes use of a pretend id and
the anonymity provided by the web to steer clear of the
clutches of the sufferer and the regulation.

Laws towards Cyber Bullying

The Indian Penal Code, 1860
(“IPC”), neither defines bullying nor
punishes it as an offence. However, numerous provisions of the IPC
and the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT
Act”) can be utilized to struggle cyber bullies.

Cyber Stalking of Women

The National Commission for Women
(“NCW”) in its authorized module on
‘Gender Sensitization and Legal Awareness Programme’⁴ defines cyber stalking as following:

‘Stalkers are strengthened
by the anonymity the web affords. He could also be on the opposite aspect
of the earth, or a next-door neighbour or a close to relative!’
It entails following an individual’s actions throughout the
Internet by posting messages (typically threatening) on the
bulletin boards frequented by the sufferer, getting into the chatrooms
frequented by the sufferer, consistently bombarding the sufferer with
emails, and so on. In basic, the stalker intends to trigger emotional
misery and has no legit goal to his
communications’

Cyber Stalking is an extension of the bodily type of stalking,
dedicated over the web, by means of e-mail or different digital
communication units and may take completely different kinds together with
slander, defamation and threats.

Cyber stalking contains, inter alia, the next:

• Sending threatening or obscene messages, posts or emails;




• Stealing an individual’s id on-line and circulating false
  info with the intent to humiliate or harass;




• Tracing the situation of an individual by means of unlawful means;




• Uploading obscene footage;




• Posting derogatory remarks on-line with the intent to
  harass.

The Press launch on ‘Digital Exploitation of
Children’, by the Ministry of Women and Child Development
states that the sections 354A and 354D of the IPC gives
punishment for cyber bullying and cyber stalking towards ladies.

Cyber-stalking of girls was recognised as an offence, subsequent
to the insertion of part 354D within the IPC by means of the Criminal
Law (Amendment) Act, 2013.

Section 354D of IPC defines stalking as following:

‘Any man who

1) follows a lady and contacts,
or makes an attempt to contact such lady to foster private interplay
repeatedly regardless of a transparent indication of disinterest by such lady;
or

2) screens the use by a lady
of the web, electronic mail or another type of digital
communication, commits the offence of stalking: (emphasis
equipped)

Provided that such conduct shall
not quantity to stalking if the person who pursued it proves
that

i) it was pursued for the aim
of stopping or detecting crime and the person accused of stalking
had been entrusted with the duty of prevention and
detection of crime by the state

ii) it was pursued underneath any regulation
or to adjust to any situation or requirement imposed by any
individual underneath any regulation

iii) specifically circumstances
such conduct was affordable and justified.’

The language of Section 354D of IPC makes it clear that the
part penalises each the offence of offline and on-line stalking,
with out discriminating on the idea of presence or absence of the
‘cyber’ element. However, sub-section (2) fails to
make clear the style by which the sufferer could be mentioned to be
‘monitored’ or ‘watched’ or what
constitutes such acts.

In the case of State of West Bengal v. Animesh Boxi⁵ , the accused took possession of some
non-public and obscene images of the sufferer by hacking into her
cellphone, blackmailed her by threatening to add the stolen footage
and movies on the web and subsequently uploaded her non-public
footage and intimate movies onto an obscene web site.

The District Court of West Bengal convicted the accused underneath
sections 354A, 354C, 354D, 509 of IPC and sections 66C and 66E of
the IT Act. The courtroom held that the offence u/s 354D of the IPC is
proved because the sufferer was not solely stalked on-line but additionally suffered
from ‘digital rape’ each time a person of the overtly
accessible world web site considered the video. The courtroom commented
that deterrence was one of many prime concerns for convicting
the accused and an insufficient sentence would do extra hurt than
justice, as it will undermine public confidence within the seriousness
of the difficulty.

Cyber Stalking of Men

At current, if a person is a sufferer of cyber stalking, Section 354D
is not going to apply. However, it’s doable that different provisions of
the IPC or the IT Act could apply. For instance, let’s assume
that Mr. ABC, the supervisor of a reputed enterprise capital fund, is
being stalked on-line by XYZ, who could also be a male or a feminine. XYZ had
initially despatched a well mannered electronic mail to ABC’s work electronic mail deal with,
searching for an appointment, in order that he may make a pitch for an
funding by ABC’s enterprise capital fund into his struggling
start-up. A PDF doc hooked up to the e-mail gave related
particulars of XYZ’s start-up. ABC replied to politely decline
the assembly and the funding alternative, which he felt
wasn’t value pursuing. Subsequently, XYZ’s emails
began to get angrier and nastier. XYZ has now began posting
some derogatory remarks concerning ABC on numerous on-line enterprise
capital boards. He has additionally despatched just a few emails to ABC by which he
explicitly threatened to hurt ABC.

The posting of derogatory remarks concerning ABC on numerous
on-line enterprise capital boards would tantamount to defamation, as
outlined underneath Section 499 of the IPC. Section 500 of the IPC
gives that whoever defames one other shall be punished with easy
imprisonment for a time period which can prolong to 2 years, or with
nice, or with each.

XYZ can be prone to be discovered responsible of legal intimidation
underneath Section 503 of the IPC on account of getting made
threats to ABC by means of emails. Section 506 of the IPC gives that
whoever commits, the offence of legal intimidation shall be
punished with imprison­ment of both description for a time period
which can prolong to 2 years, or with nice, or with each. If the
menace was to, inter alia, trigger demise or grievous harm, it shall
be punished with imprison­ment of both description for a time period
which can prolong to seven years, or with nice, or with each. If the
emails despatched by XYZ to ABC had been nameless, part 507 of the IPC
gives that XYZ shall be punished with imprisonment of both
description for a time period which can prolong to 2 years, as well as
to the punishment prescribed underneath part 506 of the IPC.

Online Sexual Harassment

In India, it was widespread for sexual harassment to be
referred to as ‘eve-teasing’, which downplayed the severity of
the offence. However, the concerted efforts of Indian courts, the
legislature, the Law Commission of India, non-governmental
organisations and ladies’s activists have led to a radical
change within the therapy of sexual harassment of girls. The
enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace
(Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013
(“POSH Act“) has conveyed a stern
message that any type of sexual harassment of girls within the
office shall not be tolerated. Further, there have been a quantity
of milestone amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code 1973
(“CrPC”), IPC and the Indian Evidence
Act which facilitate the prosecution of sexual harassment.

With impact from February 3, 2013, Section 354A was inserted in
the IPC to penalise the offence of sexual harassment. Section 354A
states that the act of creating bodily contact and advances
involving unwelcome and express sexual overtures, or
demanding/requesting for sexual favours, or displaying pornography, or
making sexually colored remarks quantities to the offence of sexual
harassment, shall be punishable with 3 (three) years of rigorous
imprisonment and/or a nice.

Online sexual harassment contains, inter alia, utilizing an
digital medium to make calls repeatedly, ship vulgar SMSes,
emails or make vulgar dialog or stress a lady to interact in
friendship or to ascertain sexual relations. However, Section 354A
of the IPC requires bodily contact or bodily advances and therefore
harassment by means of an digital medium will fall exterior of the
purview of Section 354A of the IPC.

Overlap between Cyber Stalking and Online Sexual
Harassment

Cyber stalking may quantity to on-line sexual harassment if it
has sexual overtones. However, a stalker is normally an nameless
individual in contrast to a sexual harasser who’s unlikely to cover his or her
id.

Fake Facebook Profiles

Creation of a Facebook profile in another person’s identify is
comparatively simple and such a profile makes it doable to indicate the
sufferer in a false gentle. There have been situations the place vulgar or
obscene photographs of a sufferer have been linked to such pretend Facebook
profile, inflicting the sufferer excessive psychological anguish.

When the creation of a pretend Facebook profile is accompanied by
the importing of vulgar or obscene photographs of the sufferer on to such
profile, Section 354A (Sexual harassment and punishment for
sexual harassment), Section 354D (Stalking), Section
499 learn with Section 500 (Defamation and Punishment for
defamation), Section 507 (Criminal intimidation by an
nameless communication) and Section 509 (Word, gesture or
act supposed to insult the modesty of a lady) of IPC could
apply.

In the case of Sazzadur Rahman v. The State of Assam and
Ors.⁶, the accused created a pretend Facebook
profile of a 15-year-old sufferer. In the pretend profile, the accused
talked about the sufferer’s identify, uploaded obscene footage, and
posted some derogatory remarks towards her, which triggered her to be
mentally unstable and hampered her tutorial development. The trial courtroom
rejected the appliance made by the accused underneath Section 311 of
CrPC. Thereafter, a petition underneath part 482 learn with sections
401/397 of CrPC was filed earlier than the Gauhati High courtroom for
quashing the order of the trial courtroom. The Gauhati High Court,
whereas dismissing the appliance, held that discretion of the trial
Court, which, ex facie, has been exercised judiciously on the idea
of related supplies, can’t be interfered with both in
revisional jurisdiction or underneath Section 482 CrPC.

In the case of Shubham Bansal v. The State (Govt of NCT
Delhi) ⁷, the accused created a false Facebook
account within the identify of Nidhi Taneja and included the phone
variety of the sufferer, which triggered her annoyance, insult, and
harassment and, due to this fact an FIR was registered towards the
accused. The sufferer additional moved one other software underneath Section
173 (8) of CrPC requesting additional investigation by the
investigating officer on account of which the matter was remanded
to the Metropolitan Magistrate for consideration. Thereafter, an
software was made by the accused for dropping the proceedings
towards him underneath Section 66A of the IT Act and Section 509 of
IPC.

The Delhi High courtroom whereas refusing to entertain the appliance
of the accused, ordered that the investigating officer chorus from
submitting his last report until the Magistrate issued instructions
on the pending software filed by the sufferer. The honourable
courtroom famous that the choice course accessible to the
investigating officer was to file a report primarily based on the
investigation carried out till then, reserving the precise to file a
supplementary challan/report in response to the pending software
made by the sufferer underneath Section 173 (8) of CrPC searching for additional
investigation.

In the case of Jitender Singh Grewal v. The State of West
Bengal⁸, the accused created a pretend Facebook
account of the sufferer and uploaded her obscene footage to such
pretend Facebook account. After the authorities cost sheeted the
accused underneath Sections 354A/354D/500/509/507 of IPC and Section 67A
of the IT Act, he filed a bail software. The trial courtroom
rejected the bail software of the accused and the Calcutta High
courtroom upheld the trial courtroom’s resolution.

In the case of Prakhar Sharma v. The State of Madhya
Pradesh⁹, the accused created a pretend Facebook
account of the sufferer, posted some vulgar messages together with the
photographs of the sufferer downloaded from her authentic Facebook account.
The accused was charged underneath Sections 66 (c), 67 and 67(a) of the
IT Act. When the accused utilized for bail, it was denied by the
Madhya Pradesh High Court.

In the case of Hareesh v. State of Kerala¹⁰, the applicant created a pretend Facebook
profile, posted morphed obscene images of the sufferer on-line,
posted her cell quantity underneath the mentioned obscene submit to be able to
allow strangers to contact her. Thereafter, an anticipatory bail
software was made by the applicant apprehending arrest in
respect of offences punishable underneath Section 354(D) of IPC and
Sections 67 and 67E of the IT Act. The Kerala High courtroom denied the
software for anticipatory bail on the bottom that supplies on
report affirmed the involvement of the applicant within the offences
and it will not be correct for the courtroom to intervene with the
investigation.

Bullying Inter-se School Mates

H, a twelve-year-old college boy was more and more withdrawn and
introverted. He regarded fearful more often than not however refused to
reveal his troubles to his mother and father who had been conscious that he spent an
extra-ordinary quantity of after-school time on his I-Pad. One evening,
after H went to mattress, his mother and father accessed his I-Pad and located that
he was on numerous discussion groups and was being bullied on-line by his
classmates. The bullying concerned identify calling and derogatory
remarks concerning his garments and his grades.

In such situation, the treatments accessible to H’s mother and father
are as following:

• Take immediate steps to indicate help to H;




• File a grievance reporting the web bullying to the varsity
  authorities. The grievance shall be regarded into by the Anti
  Bullying Committee required to be shaped in each college in
  accordance with the ‘CBSE Guidelines for prevention of
  Bullying and Ragging in Schools’;




• Report the web bullying to the closest police station, who
  shall refer the matter to the cyber-crime cell for investigation.
  Thereafter, the cyber-crime cell shall report the matter to the
  Juvenile Justice Board, which is able to conduct an inquiry and take care of
  the incident as per the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care
  and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

Footnotes

1. S. 351, Indian Penal Code, 1860
defines assault as: Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation
intending or understanding it to be doubtless that such gesture or
preparation will trigger any individual current to apprehend that he who
makes that gesture or preparation is about to make use of legal power to
that individual, is claimed to commit an assault.

Explanation—Mere phrases don’t
quantity to an assault. But the phrases which an individual makes use of could give to
his gestures or preparation such a which means as could make these
gestures or preparations quantity to an assault.]

2. S. 350, Indian Penal Code, 1860
defines battery or legal power as : Whoever deliberately makes use of
power to any individual, with out that individual’s consent, to be able to
the committing of any offence, or intending by way of such
power to trigger, or understanding it to be doubtless that by way of such
power he’ll trigger damage, worry or annoyance to the individual to whom
the power is used, is claimed to make use of legal power to that different.

3. Smith, P. Ok., del Barrio, C., &
Tokunaga, R. S. (2013). Definitions of bullying and
cyberbullying: How helpful are the phrases? In S. Bauman, D.
Cross, & J. Walker (Eds.), Routledge monographs in psychological
well being. Principles of cyberbullying analysis: Definitions,
measures, and methodology (p. 26–40). Routledge/Taylor
& Francis Group.

4. Ministry of Women and Child
growth. National Commission for Women. 2019. Legal module
on ‘Gender Sensitization and Legal Awareness
Programme‘.
http://ncw.nic.in/notice/legal-module-gender-sensitization-and-legal-awareness-programme-collaboration-kendriya.

5. State of West Bengal v. Animesh
Boxi , GR No. 1587 of 2017.

6. Sazzadur Rahman v. The State of
Assam and Ors., Criminal Petition No. 654 of 2019.

7. Shubham Bansal v. The State (Govt
of Nct Delhi), Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2024 of
2018.

8. Jitender Singh Grewal v. The State
of West Bengal, Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 7252 of
2018.

9. Prakhar Sharma v. The State of
Madhya Pradesh, MCRC No. 377 of 2018.

10. Hareesh v. State of Kerala,
Bail Application No. 4858 of 2018.

The content material of this text is meant to offer a basic
information to the subject material. Specialist recommendation needs to be sought
about your particular circumstances.