Kerala High Court’s Landmark Ruling On Online Sexual Harassment: Progress Made, But Accountability Gaps Linger
Judgement Given On : 20/06/2018
In the verdict, the Kerala High Court has shed light on a crucial issue: that posting sexually explicit comments about a woman on social media can constitute online sexual harassment. This ruling prompts essential questions about the definition and extent of online sexual harassment, specifically in the context of comments left on individuals’ Facebook photographs. In the case of Majeesh K Mathew v. State of Kerala, the Kerala High Court, in its judgment dated June 20, 2018, denied the accused’s application for bail. The accused faced accusations of posting derogatory comments on Facebook pages, containing sexually explicit content that targeted the complainant.
Online Sexual Harassment in India
Distinguishing itself from traditional forms of sexual harassment, “online sexual harassment” unfolds in the virtual realm through the utilization of information technology. In the recently cited case of Majeesh K Mathew v. State of Kerala, the accused was accused of posting explicit comments on the complainant’s Facebook photographs, which the court found to be sexually offensive. The court classified these Facebook posts as instances of online sexual harassment, cyberbullying, cyber misogyny, and cybersexism. Allegedly, the accused’s actions were fueled by differences in political views with the complainant.
While several manifestations of online sexual harassment exist, including non-consensual pornography (commonly referred to as revenge porn), threats of rape, and sexual harassment on social media platforms, the behavior exhibited in this case can be categorized as cyberstalking and cyberbullying. Cyberstalking entails online harassment or stalking of an individual, which may encompass defamatory conduct and false allegations. Cyberbullying, a related offense, covers online harassment or bullying directed at a person.
Case Background:
The complainant was a social activist, the spouse of a sitting Member of Parliament, and the author of a published book in which she made certain allegations against a young political leader. The accused, serving as the General Secretary of the youth wing of the Democratic Kerala Congress, along with others, purportedly posted numerous derogatory comments on his Facebook pages, primarily targeting the complainant.
These comments included explicit remarks, and pictures of the complainant and her husband were also shared, constituting instances of online sexual harassment. The complainant contended that the accused’s actions displayed a hostile attitude towards her. The accused contended that he had no intention of denigrating the complainant or tarnishing her image with his posts, thereby challenging his liability under Section 67A of the Information Technology Act.
Court’s Verdict:
The court dismissed the accused’s argument concerning the explicit nature of the content. It observed a concerted effort to target the complainant due to her references to a young leader in her book. The Facebook posts, which had been in the public domain for some time, contained allusions to immorality, masturbation, promiscuous sexual behavior, and insinuations regarding the complainant’s engagement in inappropriate activities. The court concluded that the complainant had been subjected to gross online sexual harassment.
Furthermore, the court noted that the accused’s actions fell within the realms of cyberbullying, cybersexism, and cyber misogyny. These actions exhibited discrimination and abuse, driven by the complainant’s political affiliations. The court emphasized that while social media provides a platform for interaction, it should not be exploited for online baiting or humiliation. The freedom offered by social media should not be misused for online harassment. Regarding the accused’s request for anticipatory bail, the court declined, considering the circumstances of the case and the presented evidence. The Kerala High Court’s ruling signifies a substantial step forward in recognizing online sexual harassment as a distinctive form of harassment. However, it also underscores the pressing need for increased accountability, particularly among internet intermediaries and social media platforms, in addressing and preventing such behavior. While the court’s decision is commendable, it highlights the ongoing challenges in combatting online sexual harassment and emphasizes the importance of comprehensive legislation and enforcement mechanisms to protect individuals from this pervasive form of abuse