Lack Of Comprehensive & Effective Legislation To Combat Cyberbullying A Grave Concern; Necessitates Urgent Attention Of Authorities: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court upheld the dismissal of the pre-arrest Application of Fakrudeen K.V., a YouTuber accused of cyberbullying.
The Kerala High Court has emphasised its “grave concern” regarding the lack of comprehensive and effective legislation to combat cyberbullying, necessitating the urgent attention of the authorities concerned.
The Court upheld the dismissal of the pre-arrest Application of Fakrudeen K.V. (Appellant), a YouTuber accused of cyberbullying under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Appellant had allegedly uploaded a defamatory video on his YouTube channel, Visal Media, picturising the Informant as a person who had been arrested for immoral traffic.
A Single Bench of Justice CS Sudha held, “In the era of social media, individuals often operate under the misconception that the right to freedom of speech and expression allows them to produce any form of content, make unfounded criticisms, issue abusive remarks, or engage in derogatory conduct towards others, all while evading accountability. This raises serious concerns, particularly in the light of the growing prevalence of cyberbullying, a phenomenon that remains inadequately addressed by current legal frameworks.”
Advocate K. Aboobacker Sidheeque appeared for the Appellant, while Senior Public Prosecutor Vipin Narayan represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Appellant downloaded videos and pictures from True T.V., edited them to include an interview with the informant’s husband, and then created and uploaded a defamatory video on his YouTube channel using his mobile phone and other electronic devices.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court, noting that the video was “offensive and derogatory,” stated that it was a “clear instance of online harassment and abuse.”
“The 2nd respondent/informant, described as the wife of a farmer with three children, is stated to have deserted her husband and is purportedly engaged in immoral activities with multiple men. She is described as a drug addict and belonging to a sex racket. The video contains an interview with the husband of the 2nd respondent/informant who says that he had once forgiven/pardoned her and brought her back after she had eloped with another man. But she did not mend her ways and is still leading a wayward life,” the Bench noted.
The Court remarked, “It is of grave concern that, in this digital age, there is a lack of comprehensive and effective legislation to combat such misconduct, which, in my view, necessitates the urgent attention of the authorities concerned. It is important to note that bullying need not be solely defined by sexual overtones, but may manifest in various forms, many of which remain insufficiently addressed by existing legal standards.”
“Notably, while the IT Act does not explicitly define or address cyberbullying, it is worth highlighting that amendments made to the Indian Penal Code in 2013 introduced provisions relating to stalking and voyeurism. However, there remains a conspicuous absence of legal provisions that directly address the issue of cyberbullying or online harassment, particularly those incidents devoid of any sexual context. Further exacerbating this concern is the fact that, despite the enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in 2024, no legal provisions have been introduced to specifically address this form of online harassment. This gap in the legal framework, in my opinion, requires immediate rectification by the authorities concerned to ensure that cyberbullying, in all its forms, is adequately regulated. To date, no other relevant provisions have been brought to my attention by either party,” the Bench further remarked.
Consequently, the Court held, “The content of the video is no doubt an insult to the victim. The FIS of the victim also states that the video has been viewed by more than one lakh persons. Therefore an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is certainly made out from the materials on record. Hence, the trial court was right in finding that bar under Section 18 and 18A of the Act is attracted. I find no grounds for interference into the impugned order.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title: Fakrudeen K.V. @ Fakrudeen Panthavoor v. State of Kerala & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:24735)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates K.Aboobacker Sidheeque, Muhammed Ibrahim Abdul Samad and Subin K Sudheer
Respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor Vipin Narayan; Advocate K.Nandini
