defamation campaigns, the nature of online abuse has become increasingly sophisticated. The absence of a comprehensive, dedicated anti-cyberbullying law has only aggravated the problem.

Instead, victims are left to rely on a patchwork of statutes—the Information Technology Act, 2000, and provisions from the Indian Penal Code, now replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Sections such as 66A (struck down in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India), 66E (violation of privacy), and 67 (obscenity) of the IT Act, along with IPC provisions for criminal intimidation, defamation, and stalking, have been invoked—but with inconsistent results and limited deterrent effect.

Recent court judgments have illuminated the legal vacuum. The Kerala High Court,, in a 2025 decision, emphasized the need for a standalone cyberbullying law. The Court observed that technology-driven harassment was affecting mental health, dignity, and safety, and that existing laws, designed for offline harm, were inadequate to address digital trauma.

In another significant instance, a Madhya Pradesh POCSO court sentenced a 26-year-old man to five years’ rigorous imprisonment for uploading obscene images of a minor girl on social media. The judgment was lauded for its swift action and strong message against online exploitation. Similarly, in Haryana, a local court handed down a seven-year sentence in a case involving the online harassment of a minor, ensuring justice within six months of the incident. These verdicts reflect a growing willingness by trial courts to treat digital crimes with the seriousness they deserve.

Yet the trauma remains acute and widespread. In Lucknow, a medical student at a prestigious university reportedly fell into severe depression after repeated caste-based cyber abuse. In another tragic case, 17-year-old Manav Singh died by suicide after being defamed online through false allegations. Such incidents expose the psychological toll of cyberbullying and raise vital questions about the efficacy of current legal and social responses.

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, has tried to modernize some provisions. Sections 74 and 77 include broader references to electronic communications in crimes such as stalking and criminal intimidation. However, the definitional vagueness and absence of focused offences—such as doxxing, revenge pornography, deepfake abuse, or organized trolling— remain glaring omissions. The law lacks a victim-centric approach, robust enforcement mechanisms, and systematic redressal pathways.

In this vacuum, the judiciary must play a proactive role. Courts can direct timely FIR registration, protect anonymity where needed, and mandate takedown orders to tech platforms. Judicial officers need specialized training in handling digital evidence, understanding platform policies, and evaluating online harm in a nuanced way. Courts must also insist on due process while protecting victims’ rights—ensuring that free speech is not used as a smokescreen for abuse.

However, the onus cannot rest on the judiciary alone. Parliament must respond with a comprehensive anti-cyberbullying statute, defining key offences, streamlining investigation and prosecution, and ensuring psychological support for victims. Regulatory bodies must collaborate with platforms to create standard operating procedures, rapid complaint redressal systems, and algorithmic transparency to prevent the amplification of harm.

Conclusion

India’s digital revolution must be matched with a revolution in digital rights protection. Cyberbullying is not merely virtual—it has real-world consequences, from mental breakdowns to tragic loss of life. The law must evolve to confront this challenge head-on. Courts are doing their part—but systemic change will require coordinated legislative action, executive enforcement, and societal accountability. The Constitution’s guarantee of dignity cannot stop at the screen. It must extend fully into cyberspace.