Recently, the Kerala High Court has expressed serious concerns over the absence of specific laws addressing cyberbullying and emphasized the need for immediate legislative action for online harassment.

The bench of Justice C.S. Sudha noted that even the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which came into effect last year, fails to adequately address such misconduct.

The court observes that people today often misuse their right to free speech, believing it grants them the liberty to make abusive remarks or engage in derogatory conduct without accountability.

“This raises serious concerns, especially given the increasing prevalence of cyberbullying, which remains inadequately addressed by existing legal frameworks. The absence of comprehensive legislation to combat such misconduct necessitates urgent attention from the authorities,” the Court remarked.

The Court further highlighted that cyberbullying is not solely defined by sexual overtones and can manifest in various forms, many of which remain insufficiently addressed by current laws.

While amendments to criminal laws cover offenses like stalking and privacy violations, there are no direct provisions dealing with online abuse that lacks sexual elements.

“There remains a glaring gap in legal provisions to specifically tackle cyberbullying or online harassment, particularly incidents devoid of any sexual context. Despite the enactment of the BNS in 2024, no dedicated legal provisions have been introduced to regulate this form of online misconduct. This void requires immediate rectification to ensure all forms of cyberbullying are adequately addressed,” the Court observed.

Case Brief:

The Court made these observations while refusing anticipatory bail to YouTuber Fakrudeen KV, who was accused of uploading an edited video defaming a woman from a Scheduled Caste.

The woman alleged that Fakrudeen posted an abusive video on his YouTube channel, Visal Media, portraying her as a person engaged in immoral activities, drug abuse, and marital infidelity. After a trial court rejected his anticipatory bail plea, Fakrudeen moved the High Court seeking relief.

His counsel argued that the video did not explicitly mention the victim’s caste and, therefore, did not attract offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). However, the prosecution countered that Fakrudeen was aware of the complainant’s caste identity and intentionally sought to humiliate and defame her, warranting charges under the Indian Penal Code, SC/ST Act, and Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act).

The senior public prosecutor contended that the edited video contained highly derogatory and defamatory statements aimed at tarnishing the victim’s reputation. The State also argued that the accused’s actions amounted to online harassment and necessitated custodial interrogation to seize the electronic devices used in editing and uploading the content.

Upon reviewing the video, the Court found it offensive and abusive, depicting the victim as a woman of questionable character. It expressed doubts about whether the content strictly fell under Sections 66E and 67A of the IT Act, which deal with privacy violations and sexually explicit material. However, the Court concluded that the video's humiliating content, which garnered over one lakh views, established an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, which penalizes intentional insult or intimidation based on caste.

“The content of the video is undoubtedly an insult to the victim. Given that the video has been viewed by over one lakh persons, an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is clearly made out. Therefore, the bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the Act applies. The trial court rightly denied bail, and I find no grounds for interference,” the Court ruled, rejecting Fakrudeen’s anticipatory bail plea.

Fakrudeen was represented by advocates K. Aboobacker Sidheeq, Muhammed Ibrahim Abdul Samad, and Subin K. Sudheer. Senior Public Prosecutor Vipin Narayan appeared for the State, while advocate K. Nandini represented the victim.

Case Title: Fakrudeen KV v. State of Kerala & Anr.