INTRODUCTION
The modern internet presents a highly disturbing paradox: while it has democratized speech and connected the world like never before, it has simultaneously transformed into a hostile breeding ground for misogynistic violence, relentless cyberbullying, targeted slurs, and graphic rape threats. For millions of women, navigating the digital ecosystem means facing a relentless barrage of gender-based hostility.[1]
With India’s monumental statutory shift from the Indian Penal Code to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), alongside evolving digital frameworks, the legal landscape has pivoted. Knowing how to wield these statutory shields is the first critical step toward reclaiming a safer, more humane digital commons.
THE SUBSTANTIVE SHIELD: DECODING THE LEGAL PROVISIONS
India’s transition to a modernised legal architecture has significantly fortified the armour available to victims. It establishes a multi-layered statutory shield designed to map virtual acts directly onto severe criminal consequences.
Online Bullying, Slurs, and Insulting Modesty: Gendered trolling, derogatory slurs, and non-consensual media manipulation are addressed directly under Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS, 2023),[2] which corresponds to and replaces Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)[3]. Section 79 of the BNS explicitly criminalises any word, gesture, or act intended to insult a woman’s modesty, including intrusive or non-consensual digital communications—punishable by imprisonment for a term that may extend to three years, along with a fine.
In Abhijeet J.K. v State of Maharashtra (2024), the Court held that to attract the offence of insulting the modesty of a woman (formerly Section 509 IPC, now Section 79 BNS), merely insulting a woman is insufficient. The sine qua non (essential ingredient) of the offence is a culpable intention to insult her modesty through words, gestures, electronic communications, or physical acts. Transmitting derogatory or suggestive electronic messages, emails, or social media communications directed at a woman constitutes a criminal liability under Section 79 BNS.
Rape Threats and Death Threats (Criminal Intimidation)- Receiving explicit threats of violence, rape, or death via direct messages and comments is legally categorised under Section 351 of the BNS.[4]
Section 351(4)[5] of the BNS addresses the use of ‘burner’ profiles by Perpetrators. If an offender masks their identity or uses an untraceable account to issue threats, the law imposes an additional layer of accountability of up to 2 years of additional prison time solely for attempting to hide behind a digital mask. In the case of an anonymous basic threat, whose punishment is up to 2 years under Section 351(2)[6], it will increase to 4 years. Subsequently, the maximum punishment for anonymous aggravated threat under Section 351(3)[7] will be up to 9 years,
In the Case of Vijayakumar v State of Tamil Nadu (2026), the court ruled that threatening to broadcast a woman’s private sexual or personal information online directly violates her right to control her digital identity and self-determination, constituting “imputing unchastity” under the law.
Cyberstalking and Digital Surveillance: Obsessive tracking, doxxing, and relentless unwanted messaging find their kryptonite in Section 78 of the BNS[8](which replaces Section 354D of the IPC)[9]. This provision explicitly criminalises the act of a man monitoring a woman’s use of the internet, email, or any other electronic communication despite her clear indication of disinterest. A first-time conviction carries up to 3 years in prison, escalating up to 5 years for subsequent offences.
The IT Act 2000: The Information Technology (IT) Act 2000 regulates the digital architecture through which the crime flows.
- Section 66E: Focuses heavily on privacy violations, specifically criminalising the capturing, publishing, or transmitting of private images of a person without their consent. [10]In the Case of Shreya Singhal v Union of India, the Supreme Court ruling struck down the overly broad Section 66A of the IT Act to protect legitimate free speech; it redefined the prosecution of cybercrimes, and the court ensured that prosecutions must now rely on targeted, substantively sound provisions like the stalking, harassment, and intimidation mandates.
- Sections 67 & 67A: These stand as massive shields against the non-consensual sharing of intimate images (NCII) and deepfakes by heavily penalising the electronic transmission of obscene or sexually explicit material.[11]
CONSTITUTIONAL & CIVIL OVERTONES — THE RIGHT TO DIGITAL DIGNITY
When a woman’s private data or intimate images are leaked online, it tears at her fundamental human dignity. Cyber safety is inextricably linked to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the Right to Life and Personal Liberty. In the landmark Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India [12]case, the Supreme Court firmly established that the right to privacy and digital dignity is a core fundamental right.
This constitutional shield has been rigorously reinforced by High Courts dealing with the real-world trauma of digital victimisation. In Subhranshu Rout v. State of Odisha[13], the court confronted the weaponisation of sexually explicit media on social networks, emphasising that the “Right to be Forgotten” acts as a vital remedy to heal from systemic online harassment. Similarly, the Karnataka High Court in X v. Registrar General[14] recognised that denying a victim the right to anonymity would essentially permit predators to slyly outrage a woman’s modesty and misuse her identity in cyberspace unhindered.
To give these constitutional protections immediate enforcement, the framework targets corporate tech giants directly. Under the IT Rules, 2021,[15] social media intermediaries (like Meta and X) lose their ‘safe harbour’ legal immunity if they do not act swiftly. They must remove non-consensual explicit content within 24 hours of being reported.
Complementing this is a powerful civil remedy via the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act. Through the Right to Erasure, a victim acts as the ultimate controller of her digital footprint.
PROCEDURAL PLAYBOOK — YOUR STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE TO FIGHT BACK
When you discover your private information or images have been leaked online, panic is a completely natural reaction. But take a deep breath: the law has a roadmap designed to help you reclaim control, step by step.
Freeze the Digital Scene & Report the Platform: Capture clear screenshots that show the abusive text, the timestamps, and most importantly, the exact URL or web link of the culprit’s profile. Once documented, hit the platform where it hurts. Report the posts directly under ‘Harassment’ or ‘Non-consensual explicit content.’ If it involves intimate images or deepfakes, upload them to StopNCII.org, a secure tool that generates a digital fingerprint to stop the image from spreading across major social networks.
Lock in Official Legal Action: Log on to cybercrime.gov.in, or dial 1930. The portal also allows you to report crimes against women completely anonymously.
If you do decide to go to the police in person, under Section 173 of the BNSS, you have the absolute right to file a Zero FIR. This means any police station you walk into is legally obligated to register your case on the spot, even if the person attacking you is sitting on the other side of the country. You are not powerless; the system is built to stand by you.
CONCLUSION
India’s modernised legal landscape isn’t just about punishing bad behaviour anymore; it’s about restoring absolute justice and dignity to your digital life.
By wrapping you in a multi-layered shield combining the strict criminal power of the BNS, the digital accountability of the IT Rules, and your personal data ownership through the DPDP Act the law ensures you never have to suffer in silence or retreat from the online world. Backed by fearless judicial precedents and armed with accessible tools like the Zero FIR, you hold a formidable legal arsenal in your hands. Cyberspace belongs to you just as much as anyone else, and with these protections standing firmly by your side, it is time to confidently push back, protect your peace, and reclaim your rightful place in the digital world.
Author(s) Name: Suhani Mehrotra (Shri Ram Swaroop Memorial University, Lucknow)
References:
[1] Gunjan Basrani and Alpika Shrivastava, ‘CYBERCRIME AGAINST WOMEN: Legal Frameworks, Emerging Challenges, and Policy Responses’ (2026) 14(5) International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts i944 <https://www.ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT26A5003.pdf> accessed 20 July 2026
[2] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, s 79
[3] Indian Penal Code 1860, s 509
[4] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, s 351
[5] Ibid s 351(4)
[6] Ibid s 351(2)
[7] Ibid s 351(3)
[8] Ibid s 78
[9] Indian Penal Code 1860, s 354D.
[10] Information Technology Act 2000, s 66 E
[11] Ibid ss 67, 67A
[12] Justice KS Puttaswamy and Anr v Union of India and Ors (2017) 10 SCC 1
[13] Subhranshu Rout v. State of Odisha (2020) SCC OnLine Ori 878
[14] X v Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka (2024) SCC OnLine Kar 18
[15] Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021