Introduction
Digital technology has become an important part of everyday life. Communication, education, employment, banking, social interaction and access to public services increasingly depend upon digital platforms. The growth of social media, messaging applications, dating applications, cloud services and artificial intelligence has expanded opportunities for participation and expression. At the same time, these technologies can be misused to cause serious harm to individuals.
Gender-based violence is no longer restricted to physical spaces. Harassment and exploitation can now continue through social-media accounts, messaging applications, emails, dating platforms and other digital services. A person may be repeatedly contacted online, monitored through electronic communication, threatened with the publication of private photographs, impersonated through a fake account or targeted through manipulated sexual content. In many cases, one incident may involve several forms of digital abuse at the same time.
Women are particularly vulnerable to several forms of technology-facilitated gender-based violence because online abuse can reinforce existing social inequalities, sexual stereotypes and power relations. The harm may extend beyond the original incident. A photograph or video, once uploaded, can be copied, downloaded and circulated through several platforms. The victim may face humiliation, social stigma, professional consequences, family pressure and psychological distress even after the original content has been removed.
The legal response to such conduct has developed gradually. The Information Technology Act, 2000, particularly after its amendment in 2008, contains important provisions relating to identity theft, electronic impersonation, privacy violations and sexually explicit material. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 now provides substantive criminal provisions relating to offences including stalking, voyeurism and conduct intended to insult the modesty of a woman or intrude upon her privacy. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 recognises electronic and digital records as evidence. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 establishes a data-protection framework, most of whose substantive provisions are yet to come into force. Platform responsibility is also addressed through the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
These laws provide important remedies, but they were not developed as one integrated framework for technology-facilitated gender-based violence. New forms of abuse such as deepfakes, AI-generated sexual content, coordinated online harassment and sophisticated identity manipulation raise questions that existing legislation does not always answer clearly.
This paper examines whether the present legal framework is sufficiently responsive to these developments and whether a gender-sensitive approach can strengthen access to justice in cyberspace.
Statement of the problem
The principal problem examined by this study is the gap between the rapid development of technology-facilitated gender-based violence and the fragmented nature of the legal response.
A single incident may involve several forms of digital harm. For example, a person may meet someone through a dating application, exchange personal information through a messaging service and later face stalking, threats, doxxing or blackmail. Similarly, an offender may obtain account credentials through phishing and subsequently use private photographs or conversations for intimidation or sexual exploitation.
The problem becomes more complicated when content is manipulated through artificial intelligence. A genuine photograph can be transformed into fabricated sexual content and circulated as if it were real. The victim may then have difficulty proving that the material is fabricated, identifying the person responsible and obtaining timely removal of the content.
The existence of a legal remedy does not always mean that the remedy is practically accessible. Victims may be reluctant to report because of stigma, fear of retaliation, reputational harm or lack of knowledge about available mechanisms. Investigation may also be affected by deleted messages, encrypted communication, anonymous accounts, foreign platforms and rapidly changing technology.
The study therefore examines whether Indian law is sufficiently coordinated, accessible and gender-sensitive to respond to these challenges.
Research questions
RQ1: Does the existing Indian legal framework adequately address technology-facilitated gender-based cybercrime?
RQ2: Do existing criminal, cyber, data-protection and evidentiary laws provide effective protection against cyberstalking, image-based abuse, morphing, deepfakes, cyber blackmail and related forms of digital harm?
RQ3: What are the major legal and practical gaps in protecting victims and securing access to justice?
RQ4: How can gender-sensitive principles and global cooperation strengthen India’s response to emerging forms of cybercrime?
Hypothesis
The existing Indian legal framework provides several remedies against technology-facilitated gender-based cybercrime, but its fragmented nature and limited recognition of emerging forms of digital abuse reduce its effectiveness. A coordinated, gender-sensitive and technology-responsive legal framework, supported by stronger evidence mechanisms, institutional cooperation and international collaboration, is necessary for meaningful gender justice in cyberspace.
Objectives of the study
The study has the following objectives:
• To examine the nature and forms of technology-facilitated gender-based cybercrime in India.
• To analyse the relevant provisions of Indian cyber, criminal, data-protection and evidentiary laws.
• To examine judicial responses to cyberstalking, identity misuse, image-based abuse, morphing and related forms of digital harm.
• To identify the major legal and practical gaps in the existing framework.
• To examine the emerging challenge of content generated or manipulated by artificial intelligence.
• To suggest measures for strengthening victim protection, digital evidence, institutional capacity and access to justice.
• To examine the role of global governance and international cooperation in addressing cross-border technology-facilitated gender-based violence.
Research methodology
The study adopts a doctrinal and qualitative research methodology. Primary sources include the Constitution of India, statutes, statutory rules, judicial decisions and relevant government and regulatory materials. Secondary sources include books, journal articles, research papers and other academic literature relating to cybercrime, gender justice, privacy and digital governance.
The study analyses the legal framework from a gender-sensitive perspective. It focuses particularly on how existing legal provisions operate when conventional forms of gender-based harm are transferred to digital spaces.
The study also examines recent technological developments, including content generated by artificial intelligence and deepfakes, because emerging technology can create forms of harm that do not fit easily within traditional legal categories.
Cyberstalking and digital surveillance
Cyberstalking demonstrates how traditional forms of harassment have moved into the digital environment. It may involve repeated unwanted messages, persistent online contact, monitoring of social-media activity, surveillance of electronic communication, creation of multiple accounts and online threats.
Section 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 specifically recognises a man’s monitoring of a woman’s use of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication as stalking. This is significant because it brings a form of digital surveillance within the scope of a specific criminal offence.1
Digital surveillance can also extend beyond direct communication. An offender may monitor a victim’s location, online activity, social-media connections or digital accounts. The availability of personal information across different platforms can make such surveillance easier.
The gender dimension is important because cyberstalking may be used to intimidate women, control their movements or discourage their participation in online spaces. A gender-sensitive approach should recognise that the impact of persistent digital monitoring may extend to personal safety, employment, education and freedom of expression.
Doxxing and privacy-based gendered harm
Doxxing refers to the unauthorised collection and publication of personal information such as a person’s address, telephone number, workplace details, photographs or other identifying information. When used against women, doxxing can expose them to further harassment, threats and physical risks.
The Information Technology Act, 2000 contains provisions relating to identity theft, electronic impersonation and violation of privacy.2 The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 adds a data-protection dimension to the issue, although most of its substantive provisions come into force only in May 2027.3 These provisions can be relevant depending on the manner in which the information was obtained, used or disclosed.
The problem is that doxxing does not always occur as an isolated offence. Personal information may be disclosed after an offender has obtained access to a victim’s account through phishing or impersonation. It may then be combined with threats, cyberstalking or sexual harassment.
Privacy is closely connected with dignity and personal autonomy. The Supreme Court’s recognition of privacy as a constitutionally protected right in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India4 provides an important constitutional foundation for understanding digital privacy.
Phishing and social engineering
Phishing involves deceptive communication intended to obtain confidential information such as passwords, financial details or account credentials. Social engineering techniques exploit human trust rather than relying only on technical vulnerabilities.
Gender-based cybercrime may begin with a seemingly ordinary online interaction. An offender may create a false identity, establish a relationship with the victim and gradually obtain photographs, personal information or account credentials. The information can later be used for blackmail, impersonation or harassment.
Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 are relevant where conduct involves identity theft or cheating by personation using a computer resource or communication device.5
The gender-sensitive aspect lies in understanding how personal information can be converted into a tool of control. The victim may not initially recognise the interaction as dangerous. Prevention therefore requires not only criminal law but also awareness about digital consent, account security and responsible sharing of personal information.
Dating applications and online sexual harassment
Dating applications have changed the way people form personal relationships. They also create opportunities for identity deception, unwanted sexual communication, harassment and exploitation.
An offender may use a false identity to establish trust, obtain intimate photographs or personal information and later threaten the victim with disclosure. In other cases, abusive communication may continue after the victim attempts to end the relationship.
Online sexual harassment can also occur through direct messages, comments, unsolicited photographs, video calls and repeated requests for sexual content. The digital nature of the conduct does not reduce its impact on dignity and personal autonomy.
A gender-sensitive legal response should recognise that consent to communicate or share an image at one point does not amount to consent for its later dissemination. The legal system should also recognise the unequal social consequences that may follow when intimate material is circulated.
Image-based abuse
Image-based abuse involves the creation, sharing or dissemination of intimate or sexually explicit images without the consent of the person concerned. The harm may continue even after the original content is removed because copies can be downloaded, reshared or circulated through different platforms.
Section 77 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which punishes voyeurism, is relevant to this issue. Its Explanation 2 provides that where the victim consents to the capture of the images or any act but not to their dissemination to third persons, such dissemination is an offence under the section. This reflects an important distinction between consent to create an image and consent to distribute it.6
The Information Technology Act, 2000 also contains provisions dealing with the electronic publication or transmission of obscene and sexually explicit material. Sections 67 and 67A may become relevant depending on the nature of the material and the conduct involved.7
The continuing circulation of intimate material makes this form of abuse particularly harmful. A victim may feel that the incident cannot be brought to an end because the material may appear again on another platform. Effective remedies therefore require both criminal investigation and rapid mechanisms for content removal.
Morphing and fabricated sexual content
Morphing involves manipulating an existing photograph or other digital material to create a fabricated image. It may be used to create sexually explicit or otherwise humiliating content involving the victim.
The problem is not limited to the creation of the manipulated image. The fabricated content may be uploaded to social-media platforms, circulated through messaging applications or sent to family members and colleagues. The victim may then have to explain that the content is false while dealing with its reputational consequences.
Indian courts have addressed such conduct through existing provisions of cyber and criminal law. In Kalandi Charan Lenka v. State of Odisha,8 a bail matter, the allegations involved a fake Facebook account, obscene messages and morphed photographs. The case demonstrates how identity misuse, cyberstalking and image-based abuse may occur together.
The case also illustrates a broader limitation of the existing framework. A single legal provision may not fully capture the privacy, dignity, reputational and psychological harm caused by digitally manipulated sexual content.
Deepfakes and artificial intelligence-enabled gender-based violence
Deepfakes and sexual content generated by artificial intelligence present a newer challenge for gender justice in cyberspace. Artificial intelligence can be used to create or manipulate photographs, videos and audio in ways that make fabricated content appear genuine. Such material can cause serious reputational, psychological and social harm, particularly when sexual or intimate content is involved.
The regulatory response to synthetically generated information is developing. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology amended the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 by the Amendment Rules, 2026, notified on 10 February 2026 and in force from 20 February 2026. The amendment defines “synthetically generated information”, requires intermediaries that enable its creation to prevent unlawful synthetic content, including non-consensual intimate imagery, and to label other synthetic content, and shortens from twenty-four hours to two hours the time within which an intermediary must act on a complaint about content depicting an individual in nudity or a sexual act, or impersonating the individual in electronic form, including through artificially morphed images. These measures mark an emerging regulatory response, but their effect in practice remains to be seen.9
The challenge becomes greater when a deepfake is created from a publicly available photograph. A person may have voluntarily uploaded an ordinary photograph without consenting to its transformation into sexual content. The distinction between consent to publish an image and consent to manipulate that image is therefore important.
A recent example is Riya Vishal Choudhary v. State,10 decided by the Madras High Court in July 2026. The matter involved allegations that photographs taken from the petitioner’s Instagram account were manipulated using artificial intelligence to create fabricated and sexually suggestive images. The case also involved steps for closing links through the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal.
This case should be understood as an emerging judicial response rather than as a comprehensive deepfake precedent. It demonstrates the practical importance of rapid removal, identification of responsible persons and preservation of digital evidence.
Cyber blackmail and sextortion
Cyber blackmail occurs when digital information, photographs, videos or other material is used to threaten a person for money, sexual favours or compliance with demands. Sextortion is a particularly harmful form in which intimate material or the threat of its disclosure is used to obtain sexual or other benefits.
The offender may initially obtain the material voluntarily or through deception. Once the material is obtained, the victim may be threatened with publication or circulation. The repeated demands can create a situation of fear and psychological pressure.
In Md. Jakirul Hoque @ Jacky v. State of Assam,11 the allegations included sexual harassment, blackmail and the use of morphed obscene photographs. The matter arose in bail proceedings, and it should be treated as a factual illustration rather than as a broad legal precedent.
The legal response may require the application of several provisions depending on the facts, including provisions relating to stalking, criminal intimidation, privacy violations, obscene or sexually explicit material and cheating.
A victim-centred approach is particularly important in sextortion cases because fear of exposure can prevent victims from approaching law-enforcement authorities.
Privacy, dignity and equality
Gender justice in cyberspace cannot be understood only through criminal offences. It is also connected with constitutional values of equality, dignity, privacy and personal liberty.
Article 14 of the Constitution of India guarantees equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws. Article 15 prohibits discrimination on specified grounds, including sex. Article 19 protects important freedoms, while Article 21 protects life and personal liberty. Judicial interpretation has expanded Article 21 to include dignity and privacy.12
In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India,13 the Supreme Court recognised privacy as a constitutionally protected right. Privacy includes aspects of individual autonomy, dignity and control over personal information.
These principles are directly relevant to digital gender-based violence. Unauthorised surveillance, disclosure of personal information, circulation of intimate material and manipulation of personal photographs can interfere with a person’s ability to control their identity and personal life.
Gender sensitivity also requires avoiding the assumption that victims are responsible for the misuse of their images. A person who voluntarily shares a photograph does not thereby consent to its sexual manipulation or later circulation. The focus of the legal response should remain on the conduct of the offender.
Intermediary and platform responsibility
Digital platforms play an important role in the circulation of harmful content. A single piece of content can reach thousands of people within a short period. Platform responsibility is therefore an important part of the legal response.
Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 provides a framework for intermediary liability and conditional safe harbour. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 impose due-diligence and grievance-redressal obligations on intermediaries.14
The practical challenge is speed. In cases involving intimate images or fabricated sexual material, delay in removal can increase harm because content may be copied and redistributed before action is taken.
At the same time, platform regulation must respect freedom of expression and avoid indiscriminate removal. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India15 remains important in understanding the constitutional relationship between online speech and intermediary responsibility.
A balanced framework should provide clear procedures for reporting unlawful gender-based content, rapid action in serious cases, preservation of relevant evidence and safeguards against misuse of reporting mechanisms.
Electronic evidence
Electronic evidence is central to the investigation and prosecution of cybercrime. Messages, emails, photographs, videos, social-media records, account details and other digital material may establish the identity of the offender and the nature of the conduct.
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 gives legal recognition to electronic and digital records. Section 61 provides that an electronic or digital record shall not be denied admissibility on the ground that it is electronic and, subject to Section 63, gives it the same legal effect as other documents. Section 63 deals with the admissibility of electronic records and prescribes conditions relating to their production and authentication.16
The practical difficulty is often not simply whether digital evidence is legally recognised, but whether it has been properly preserved and authenticated. Digital material may be deleted, modified, encrypted or stored across different platforms and jurisdictions.
Content generated or manipulated by artificial intelligence creates an additional challenge in determining authenticity. Screenshots alone may not always establish the complete context of a digital communication. Metadata, device records, platform information and forensic examination may become important.
Effective digital forensic capacity is therefore necessary for gender-based cybercrime cases. Investigating officers should have access to trained forensic personnel and appropriate technical resources. Victims should also receive clear guidance on preserving evidence without altering or deleting original material.
Judicial interpretation and relevant case law
Indian courts have dealt with different forms of technology-enabled harassment through the application of existing criminal and cyber laws. These decisions show how conventional legal provisions have been used to address emerging forms of digital harm.
State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti17 is one of the early Indian cybercrime cases involving the publication of obscene and defamatory material about a woman through online platforms. The case resulted in conviction under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, along with Sections 469 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now Sections 336(4) and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023). It demonstrates the early use of cyber law to address online harassment and reputational harm.
Kalandi Charan Lenka v. State of Odisha,18 decided on a bail application, involved cyberstalking, a fake social-media account, obscene messages and morphed photographs of the victim. The case demonstrates how different forms of digital abuse may occur together and require the application of multiple legal provisions.
Lekshmi v. State of Kerala19 concerned allegations relating to the posting of morphed photographs of the victim on Facebook with the intention of damaging her reputation. The matter arose on an application for anticipatory bail and should therefore be used as an illustration of digitally manipulated images and online reputational harm rather than as a broad precedent.
In Md. Jakirul Hoque @ Jacky v. State of Assam,20 the allegations included sexual harassment, blackmail and morphed obscene photographs. The matter also arose in bail proceedings. It demonstrates how image manipulation may be combined with sexual blackmail and threats.
The constitutional position is strengthened by Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India,21 which recognised privacy as a constitutionally protected right connected with dignity, liberty and autonomy.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India22 is relevant to the relationship between freedom of expression and intermediary responsibility in the digital environment. The judgment is important when considering how online platforms can be required to address unlawful content while maintaining constitutional protection for legitimate speech.
A recent development is Riya Vishal Choudhary v. State,23 decided by the Madras High Court in 2026. The case involved allegations that photographs taken from the petitioner’s Instagram account were manipulated using artificial intelligence to create fabricated and sexually suggestive images. The proceedings illustrate the emerging judicial response to image manipulation assisted by artificial intelligence and the importance of removing harmful digital content.
These cases collectively show that Indian courts have been able to apply existing law to different forms of online harm. They also reveal the limits of relying entirely on provisions that were not specifically designed for newer technologies.
Existing legal gaps
A. Fragmented legal framework
The legal response to gender-based cybercrime is distributed across the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Different provisions may apply to the same incident, creating uncertainty for victims and investigators.
B. Limited recognition of emerging forms of abuse
New forms of abuse such as deepfakes, AI-generated sexual content, coordinated harassment and sophisticated sextortion do not always fit neatly within existing offences. The law often has to rely on a combination of provisions designed for different types of conduct.
C. Inadequate response to doxxing
The disclosure of personal information can expose victims to both online and physical risks. Existing data-protection and criminal provisions do not provide a single, clear and comprehensive response to doxxing.
D. Difficulties in digital evidence
Cybercrime cases may depend heavily on electronic evidence. Deleted content, encrypted communication, anonymous accounts, foreign servers and manipulated material create difficulties in preservation, authentication and investigation.
E. Delays in content removal
The continuing circulation of intimate or fabricated sexual material can increase the harm to victims. Delayed platform response may allow content to spread across several services.
F. Limited victim-centred support
Victims may face stigma, fear, psychological distress and professional consequences. The legal framework does not always provide a single coordinated system combining reporting, counselling, legal assistance, evidence preservation and content removal.
G. Institutional capacity gaps
Effective enforcement requires trained police officers, cyber investigators, prosecutors, judicial officers and digital forensic experts. Differences in institutional capacity can affect the quality and speed of investigation.
H. Cross-border nature of cybercrime
Cybercrime may involve an offender in one country, a victim in another and digital evidence stored on servers located elsewhere. Differences in laws and procedures can make investigation and evidence sharing difficult.
Recommendations
A. Develop a comprehensive and integrated legal framework
India should consider a more coordinated legal framework bringing together the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The framework should clearly address technology-facilitated gender-based violence and reduce uncertainty caused by overlapping provisions.
B. Strengthen the legal framework for emerging forms of cybercrime
The law should keep pace with new forms of online abuse such as cyberstalking, sextortion, identity misuse, coordinated harassment and technology-enabled sexual exploitation. Clearer legal provisions can help investigators, courts and victims understand the available remedies.
C. Provide specific protection against deepfakes and abuse generated by artificial intelligence
Sexual content and deepfakes generated by artificial intelligence require specific attention. The law and the intermediary framework should provide effective mechanisms for detection, labelling, rapid removal, preservation of evidence and accountability while protecting legitimate uses of artificial intelligence.
D. Strengthen data protection and address doxxing
Protection of personal data should be connected with the prevention of gender-based digital harm. Unauthorised disclosure of addresses, phone numbers, photographs and other personal information can expose victims to further harassment and physical risks. A stronger response to doxxing is needed.
E. Strengthen digital forensics and electronic evidence
Cybercrime investigations require trained forensic personnel and reliable procedures for collecting, preserving and authenticating electronic evidence. Greater institutional capacity is needed to deal with deleted content, encrypted communications, cloud storage and material generated by artificial intelligence.
F. Create a victim-centred and rapid-response system
Victims should have access to confidential reporting, quick grievance redressal, counselling, legal assistance and effective mechanisms for removal of harmful content. A victim-centred approach should recognise the continuing psychological, social and professional effects of digital abuse.
G. Promote gender-sensitive cybercrime prevention and capacity building
Police officers, investigators, prosecutors, judicial officers and other stakeholders should receive regular training on gender-sensitive cybercrime investigation. Public awareness programmes should also educate users about privacy, consent, online safety and responsible digital behaviour.
H. Strengthen cross-platform and cross-border cooperation
Cybercrime frequently involves multiple platforms and may cross national borders. Better cooperation among law-enforcement agencies, intermediaries and technology companies is needed for evidence preservation, identification of offenders and timely removal of unlawful content.
I. Promote global governance and international cooperation
Global governance should play a greater role in addressing technology-facilitated gender-based violence. Cybercrime can cross national borders, making cooperation between states, technology platforms and international organisations important. Common principles relating to privacy, dignity, equality, gender justice, evidence sharing and victim protection can support more consistent responses while respecting national legal systems.
Conclusion
Cyberspace has become an important part of modern life, but it has also created new forms of gender-based harm. Cyberstalking, doxxing, phishing, online sexual harassment, image-based abuse, morphing, deepfakes, cyber blackmail and sextortion demonstrate how technology can be used to violate privacy, dignity and personal autonomy.
Indian law provides several mechanisms to respond to these forms of conduct. The Information Technology Act, 2000, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 together provide an important legal foundation. Constitutional principles of equality, dignity, privacy and personal liberty further strengthen the legal framework.
The central difficulty is not the complete absence of law. It is the fragmented and sometimes reactive nature of the legal response. Technology develops faster than legislation, and emerging forms of abuse often require several laws to be applied together. This creates difficulties for victims, investigators and courts.
Gender sensitivity should also mean more than treating every digital offence as gender-neutral. The law must recognise the different social consequences that digital sexual abuse, surveillance and reputational attacks can have on women and other vulnerable groups. At the same time, the framework should remain capable of protecting every person who experiences technology-facilitated abuse.
Artificial intelligence has added a new dimension to the problem. Deepfakes and synthetic sexual content demonstrate that a person’s photograph, voice or identity can be misused without physical access to the victim. The response must consequently combine criminal law, data protection, intermediary responsibility, digital forensics and victim support.
Effective gender justice in cyberspace requires cooperation among the State, the judiciary, law-enforcement agencies, technology platforms, civil society and international institutions. Global governance is particularly important because cybercrime does not stop at national borders. India can contribute to the development of international principles relating to digital dignity, privacy, consent, evidence sharing and victim protection while ensuring that such principles remain consistent with Indian constitutional values and social realities.
The objective should not be to create regulation merely in response to every new technology. It should be to build a legal system capable of adapting to technological change while protecting equality, dignity, privacy and access to justice. A gender-sensitive and technology-responsive approach can help ensure that cyberspace remains a space for participation and opportunity rather than becoming another environment in which existing inequalities are reproduced.
*****
Footnotes
1. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, No. 45 of 2023, India Code (2023), § 78(1)(ii).
2. The Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000, India Code (2000), §§ 66C, 66D, 66E.
3. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, No. 22 of 2023, India Code (2023); see Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology Notification, G.S.R. 843(E) (Nov. 13, 2025), Gazette of India, Extraordinary, pt. II, sec. 3(i) (bringing §§ 3–5, 6(1)–(8) and (10), 7–17, 27 (except 27(1)(d)), 28–34, 36, 37 and 44(2) into force eighteen months from publication), https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2025/11/c56ceae6c383460ca69577428d36828b.pdf.
4. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
5. The Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000, India Code (2000), §§ 66C–66D.
6. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, No. 45 of 2023, India Code (2023), § 77, expl. 2.
7. The Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000, India Code (2000), §§ 67–67A.
8. Kalandi Charan Lenka v. State of Odisha, BLAPL No. 7596 of 2016 (Orissa H.C. Jan. 16, 2017), 2017 SCC OnLine Ori 63.
9. Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2026, G.S.R. 120(E) (Feb. 10, 2026), Gazette of India, Extraordinary, pt. II, sec. 3(i), rr. 2(a)(ii), 3(b)(ii), 3(c) (inserting r. 2(1)(wa), amending r. 3(2)(b) and inserting r. 3(3) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021), https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2026/02/f55fe52418b03f58b0669f6a8bc03b6d.pdf.
10. Riya Vishal Choudhary v. State, W.P. (Crl.) No. 1569 of 2026 (Madras H.C. July 20, 2026).
11. Md. Jakirul Hoque @ Jacky v. State of Assam, Bail Appln. No. 1624 of 2022 (Gauhati H.C. July 25, 2022); Md. Jakirul Hoque @ Jacky v. State of Assam, Bail Appln. No. 1935 of 2022 (Gauhati H.C. Aug. 26, 2022).
12. India Const. arts. 14, 15, 19, 21.
13. Puttaswamy, supra note 4.
14. The Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000, India Code (2000), § 79; Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, G.S.R. 139(E) (Feb. 25, 2021), r. 3.
15. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1.
16. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, No. 47 of 2023, India Code (2023), §§ 61–63.
17. State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti, C.C. No. 4680 of 2004 (Egmore Mag. Ct., Chennai Nov. 5, 2004) (conviction under § 67, Information Technology Act, 2000 and §§ 469, 509, Indian Penal Code, 1860); see The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, No. 45 of 2023, India Code (2023), §§ 336(4), 79.
18. Kalandi Charan Lenka, supra note 8.
19. Lekshmi v. State of Kerala, B.A. No. 6921 of 2017 (Ker. H.C. Oct. 17, 2017).
20. Md. Jakirul Hoque @ Jacky v. State of Assam, Bail Appln. No. 1935 of 2022 (Gauhati H.C. Aug. 26, 2022).
21. Puttaswamy, supra note 4.
22. Shreya Singhal, supra note 15.
23. Riya Vishal Choudhary, supra note 10.