Understanding the IT Act for Online Harassment in India

The Information Technology Act, 2000 (amended 2008) is the primary legislation governing electronic communications, cyber crimes, and digital intermediary liability in India. Not all provisions are equally relevant to online reputation and harassment cases.

Section 66A — often cited — was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015 and cannot be invoked. Sections 66C (identity theft), 66E (privacy violation), 67 (obscene content), and 67A (sexually explicit content) remain fully in force.

Section 66E punishes the intentional capture, publication, or transmission of a private area of a person without their consent in circumstances that violate privacy. This is a three-year imprisonment provision applicable to non-consensual sharing of private images and videos.

The section has been applied to "revenge porn" cases and cases involving recording of private individuals without consent. It is separate from defamation and does not require proof of falsity — only proof of non-consented publication.

Section 67A criminalises the publication or transmission of material containing sexually explicit acts in electronic form. The punishment is imprisonment of up to 5 years and a fine of up to ₹10 lakh for a first conviction.

Combined with the IT Rules 2021 (which require platforms to remove such content within 24 hours of a complaint), Section 67A provides a powerful legal basis for the rapid removal of non-consensual intimate images.

The IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 represent the most practically significant recent development for online reputation cases. These rules impose on all intermediaries (websites, apps, social platforms) a duty to appoint a Grievance Officer in India, publish takedown mechanisms, and respond to complaints within defined timelines.

Critically, an intermediary that fails to comply with the Rules loses its safe harbour protection under Section 79 of the IT Act — meaning it can be held directly liable for user-generated content. This is a powerful enforcement mechanism that is systematically underused by complainants acting without legal guidance.