Project on

“Comparative Analysis of Legal Approaches to Cyberstalking and Online Harassment: India, the US, and
the UK”

Comparative Criminal Procedure

CONTINUOUS EVALUATION COMPONENT SUBMISSION

Submitted by: Nishant Upadhyay

Roll No. 19BAL024

 Comparative Analysis of Legal Approaches to
Cyberstalking and Online Harassment: India, the US,
and the UK
Statement of Problem
The issue of cyberstalking and online harassment has become increasingly prevalent in the
modern era of digital technology, presenting a diverse and intricate challenge. As the reliance
on online platforms for personal, social, and professional activities continues to grow, the
prevalence and detrimental impact of digital offenses have escalated. The issue at hand has
been further exacerbated by the global nature of the internet, which surpasses regional
boundaries. Consequently, a thorough analysis is required to understand how various legal
systems tackle these infractions. The issue under consideration involves discrepancies in
legal definitions and frameworks across different jurisdictions, leading to differences in how
victims and perpetrators are legally treated. This is further complicated by the ongoing
advancements in technology, which present further issues in adjusting legal frameworks. The
existence of these inequities and obstacles has profound consequences for the preservation of
individual rights, the safeguarding of victims, and the general efficacy of the criminal justice
system in handling digital offenses.

Review of Literature

 Citation: Cassie Cox, Protecting Victims of Cyberstalking, Cyberharassment, and

Online Impersonation through Prosecutions and Effective Laws, 54 Jurimetrics 277
(2014), http://www.jstor.org/stable/24395601.
Title: Protecting Victims of Cyberstalking, Cyberharassment, and Online
Impersonation through Prosecutions and Effective Laws
Literature Review : Cyberharassment, and Online Impersonation through
Prosecutions and Effective Laws," provides a thorough examination of the legal and
practical aspects of protecting individuals who are victims of cyberstalking,
Cyberharassment, and online impersonation. This paper examines the present legal
 framework critically and evaluates the efficiency of existing legislation in resolving
these modern concerns. Cox's study focuses on case studies and empirical data to
emphasize the difficulties that victims confront as well as the complications of
prosecuting perpetrators in the online arena. The essay emphasizes the vital role of
the law in protecting the safety and protection of those who face online harassment,
with an emphasis on the necessity of laws and prosecutions. This book is a vital
resource for people interested in understanding the legal components of combatting
cybercrime, as well as helpful insights for politicians and legal professionals working
to improve the legal framework surrounding cybercrime.

 Citation: Katyal, Neal Kumar. "Criminal Law in Cyberspace." University of

Pennsylvania Law Review, vol. 149, no. 4, 2001, pp. 1003–114. JSTOR,
https://doi.org/10.2307/3312990.
Title: Criminal Law in Cyberspace
Literature Review: "Criminal Law in Cyberspace," by Neal Kumar Katyal, is an
interesting analysis of the complex legal environment surrounding cybercrime and the
application of criminal law in the digital domain. This paper, which was published in
the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, dives into the difficulty of modifying
traditional criminal law doctrines to fit the changing issues of online. Katyal's study
covers a wide variety of themes, including jurisdictional concerns and the treatment
of digital evidence, and provides insightful views on the necessity for legal change in
response to the particular character of cybercrime. Katyal's paper is a basic
component in the conversation on the legal challenges of addressing illegal actions in
the digital era, drawing on case studies and a profound grasp of the junction of
criminal law and technology. It is an indispensable resource for legal academics,
practitioners, and policymakers seeking a thorough grasp of the complex problems
surrounding cybercrime and the increasing role of the law in the digital realm.
 Citation: Gray, David, et al. "Fighting Cybercrime after 'United States v. Jones.'"
The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), vol. 103, no. 3, 2013, pp.
745–801. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43895378.
Title: Fighting Cybercrime after 'United States v. Jones'
Literature Review: In their scholarly work published in The Journal of Criminal
Law and Criminology, David Gray and colleagues undertake a comprehensive
exploration of the legal landscape surrounding cybercrime, with a particular focus on
the implications of the United States v. Jones case. This article delves into the
evolving challenges and legal complexities faced by law enforcement and legal
practitioners in the wake of this seminal case. The authors provide a critical analysis
of the impact of 'United States v. Jones' on the investigation and prosecution of
cybercrimes, especially in the context of digital surveillance. Drawing from extensive
legal research and case studies, the article sheds light on the intricacies of cybercrime
investigation, privacy concerns, and the evolving legal standards in this dynamic
field. Gray et al.'s work remains a valuable contribution to the discourse on the legal
dimensions of cybercrime, offering insights and recommendations for legal
professionals, scholars, and policymakers grappling with the complex issues
surrounding digital crime and privacy in the digital age.

 Citation : Munasinghe, Paramie, and Kushanthi Harasgama. "A Comparative

Analysis of Cyberstalking Legislations in UK, Singapore and Sri Lanka." SSRN,
August 12, 2021. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3903800.
Title: A Comparative Analysis of Cyberstalking Legislations in UK, Singapore and
Sri Lanka
Literature Review: The study article by Paramie Munasinghe and Kushanthi
Harasgama provides a complete comparative review of cyberstalking legislation in
the United Kingdom, Singapore, and Sri Lanka. This research critically explores the
legislative solutions in these varied nations in a digital era when online harassment
and stalking have become serious problems. The authors provide in-depth research
into the definitions, breadth, and aspects of cyberstalking charges in each country,
emphasizing the significance of accurate legal definitions for efficient prosecution.
 They also investigate the sanctions and safeguards available to prevent cyberstalking
and protect victims. The paper serves as an essential resource for scholars,
policymakers, and legal professionals seeking a deeper understanding of how
different legal systems address cyberstalking and the challenges posed by this
pervasive form of online harassment by comparing and contrasting their legal
approaches. The study emphasizes the importance of continuing legislative evaluation
and modification in order to successfully prevent cyberstalking and safeguard persons
in the digital environment.

 Citation: Sakshi, M., & Vashishth, A. (2022). An analysis of cybercrime with

special reference to cyber stalking. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 1279-
1287.
Title: An Analysis of Cyber Crime with Special Reference to Cyber Stalking
Literature Review: Sakshi and Vashishth give a critical examination of cybercrime
in their essay published in the "Journal of Positive School Psychology," with a
specific focus on cyberstalking. The purpose of this study is to get a better
understanding of the varied nature of cybercrime, with a focus on the prevalence and
repercussions of cyberstalking. The authors add to the ongoing discussion on the
developing landscape of cybercrime by throwing light on the complexity of this type
of online harassment. This paper is a helpful resource for individuals interested in
understanding the dynamics of cybercrime and the special issues that cyberstalking
presents. It underlines the significance of recognizing and eliminating cyberstalking
in today's digital age, emphasizing the need for a more complete knowledge of this
societal issue.

Objectives:
The objectives of this research paper are :

 to carry out a comparative legal examination of the methods used by the US, UK, and
India to define and control online harassment and cyberstalking, with an emphasis on
finding differences and similarities in their respective legal systems.
  to assess and contrast, taking into account the efficacy, efficiency, and resources
allotted to these initiatives, the reporting procedures and the law enforcement reaction
to cyberstalking and online harassment in each jurisdiction.
 To analyze the legal defenses that people accused of cyberstalking and online
harassment can employ in India, the US, and the UK, emphasizing the variations and
convergences in legal safeguards and procedural protections.
 To evaluate the legal ramifications for offenders and their implications for deterrence,
as well as the differences and similarities between the sentencing guidelines and
punishments for cyberstalking and online harassment in different jurisdictions.
 to evaluate the victim support programs offered in each jurisdiction, taking into
account safety and privacy precautions for victims, in order to determine the level and
suitability of the help offered.
 To examine the extent of global collaboration in tackling incidents of cross-border
cyberstalking and online harassment, as well as the effects of recent legislative
advancements, such as modifications, overhauls, and new advances.
 To offer a thorough comparative study of the legal systems in the US, UK, and India,
highlighting similarities and differences in legal definitions, enforcement procedures,
legal defenses, punishments, and victim assistance.

Hypothesis
The hypothesis claims that disparities in legal definitions, enforcement procedures, and
victim support systems pertaining to cyberstalking and online harassment throughout India,
the United States, and the United Kingdom would lead to varying degrees of efficacy in
tackling these transgressions. The aforementioned inconsistencies will be evident in the form
of discrepancies in the prosecution, legal handling, and prevention of cyberstalking and
online harassment. This underscores the importance of international collaboration and the
alignment of legal approaches to successfully address these issues in the era of digital
technology.
Research Questions
This research paper's research questions are as follows:

 What are the fundamental disparities in the legal definitions and frameworks
pertaining to cyberstalking and online harassment in India, the United States, and the
United Kingdom?
 In what ways do the efficaciousness and resource availability of procedures for
reporting and law enforcement responses to cyberstalking and online harassment
differ among jurisdictions?
 What legal defenses are available for those accused of online harassment and
cyberstalking, and how do they vary or match amongst different nations?
 What are the differences and similarities among the sentencing guidelines and
sanctions for cyberstalking and online harassment in the US, UK, and India, and how
do they affect the deterrent effect?
 How different are these countries' victim assistance programs and privacy laws from
one another, and how effective are these programs for victims?
 What effect does international collaboration have on the management of international
cases involving cyberstalking and online harassment, and how are these cases
affected by current legal developments?
 In what ways may legal frameworks and remedies be strengthened to more efficiently
tackle the issues of cyberstalking and online harassment?

Methodology
The methodology employed in this study is doing a comparative legal analysis of the
measures taken to address the issues of cyberstalking and online harassment in India, the
United States, and the United Kingdom. The analysis will involve the examination of
primary sources, which encompass legal documents, legislation, case law, and government
reports. Additionally, secondary sources such as academic papers and reports will be
considered. The research methodology used for this study is qualitative content analysis,
which will be utilized to discern differences and similarities in legal definitions, enforcement
procedures, legal defenses, punishments, and victim support systems. The analysis will be
guided by a comparative perspective, while ethical issues will be duly respected. The
research will culminate in providing suggestions for enhancing legal frameworks and
promoting international cooperation in tackling these digital transgressions.
 Introduction

In an era characterized by the widespread prevalence of digital communication, the

parameters of harassment and stalking have expanded to encompass the virtual sphere,
presenting a significant issue within the area of criminal law: the emergence of cyberstalking
and online harassment. With the growing reliance on digital platforms for social interactions,
professional engagements, and personal connections, there has been a significant increase in
the occurrence of harm, such as persistent online threats, privacy breaches, and steadfast
victimization. The aforementioned situation surpasses geographical limitations and has
provoked a pressing necessity to examine the legislative measures taken in various countries
to address cyberstalking and online harassment.1

The internet's inherent lack of borders has enabled these transgressions to transcend physical
boundaries, frequently spanning across many nations. As a result, the emergence of this
problem has generated the need for global cooperation in tackling the complex array of
obstacles presented by cyberstalking and online harassment. Hence, the primary objective of
this study is to examine and contrast the legal structures of India, the United States, and the
United Kingdom in relation to this significant matter. The intention is to identify the
divergences and similarities in the legal strategies employed by these jurisdictions 2.

The research has relevance not alone in its potential to enhance comprehension of legal
reactions to cyberstalking and online harassment, but also in its capacity to shed light on the
necessity for international collaboration and harmonization in tackling these digital
transgressions. The findings of this research have significant consequences for the protection
of individual rights, the promotion of justice, and the establishment of legal frameworks that
can adequately address the complex issues associated with digital harassment. The primary
objective of this project is to contribute to global initiatives in safeguarding persons,
mitigating digital abuse, and ensuring accountability for cyberstalking and online harassment.
This will be achieved by an analysis of how different legal systems address a common

1
Shambhavee, H. M. "Cyber-Stalking: Threat to People or Bane to Technology." Int. J. Trend Sci. Res. Dev 3
(2019): 350-355
2
Cassie Cox, Protecting Victims of Cyberstalking, Cyberharassment, and Online Impersonation through
Prosecutions and Effective Laws, 54 Jurimetrics 277 (2014), http://www.jstor.org/stable/24395601.
challenge in the context of the digital era
Different types of cyberstalking

Cyberstalking may be categorized into three distinct classifications, namely:

 Email stalking;
 Internet stalking;
 Computer stalking.

Email Stalking
The act of email stalking refers to the persistent and intrusive monitoring of an individual's
electronic communications, namely through the unauthorized access and surveillance

Similar to other types of stalking, such as making phone calls, sending letters, and engaging
in physical surveillance, the prevalence of email stalking has increased in the physical realm.
In contrast, cyberstalking can manifest in several manifestations. Unsolicited electronic mail,
also known as spam, constitutes a very pervasive form of harassment characterized by the
transmission of abusive, offensive, or potentially hazardous communications.

Additional manifestations of electronic harassment encompass the transmission of malicious

software or an overwhelming influx of unsolicited electronic correspondence directed
towards the targeted individual. It is important to acknowledge that the act of spreading
viruses or engaging in telemarketing calls does not inherently constitute stalking.
Nevertheless, if these communications are often conveyed with the purpose of instilling fear
or intimidation, akin to the actions of physical stalkers who mail victims unsolicited
pornographic magazine subscriptions, it might potentially be classified as a kind of stalking.

Internet Stalking
The phenomenon commonly referred to as "internet stalking" is a form of intrusive behavior
that involves the persistent and unwanted pursuit of an individual
There exists a tangible likelihood that those engaging in stalking behavior will utilize the
internet extensively as a means to disseminate unfounded information about their targets, so
exposing them to potential harm. In several instances, the phenomenon of cyberstalking
transcends its individual implications and has a broader societal significance. The
 phenomenon of online stalking is particularly concerning due to its perceived propensity for
manifesting in offline contexts.

Traditional stalking methods, such as persistent phone calls, graffiti, threatening letters, and
even physical assaults, occasionally go hand in hand with cyberstalking. The disparities in
the encounters between an individual subjected to long-distance stalking spanning 2,000
miles and another individual who frequently finds themselves in close proximity to their
stalker, within bullet range, are considerable.3

. The phenomenon of internet stalking persists in its focus on causing emotional anguish,
dread, and anxiety, despite the presence of empirical and practical data that establishes a
connection between stalking and domestic violence as well as feticide. This statement does
not diminish the necessity of imposing penalties on individuals who deliberately instigate
fear and worry.4

Computer Stalking
The act of monitoring or tracking an individual's online activities without their knowledge or
consent, sometimes referred to as "computer stalking," is
Computer stalking, as a distinct kind of cyberstalking, pertains to the unauthorized
infiltration of a victim's Windows personal computer using the victim's web browser. It is not
well known that any Windows personal computer that is connected to the Internet has the
potential to be remotely located and connected to another computer. Through this established
link, the hacker possesses the ability to assume command of the targeted individual's
computer system, unimpeded by any external entities.

The cyberstalker can start direct communication with the victim when a victim's computer
establishes an Internet connection. The best course of action for a victim to save themselves
in the event that a stalker has gained unauthorized access to their computer would be to stop
using the Internet and change their IP address.

Legal Framework around the World

3
Katyal, Neal Kumar. "Criminal Law in Cyberspace." University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol. 149, no. 4,
2001, pp. 1003–114. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3312990.
4
Kaur, Puneet, et al. "A systematic literature review on cyberstalking. An analysis of past achievements and future
promises." Technological Forecasting and Social Change 163 (2021): 120426.
 1. United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, there is currently no dedicated legislation specifically addressing the
issue of internet stalking. There exist three primary legislative measures employed to address
instances of harassment, which are also applicable in situations of stalking. The subject of
stalking, including cyber stalking, is addressed via the utilization of three prominent statutes:
the Telecommunications Act of 1984, the Malicious Communications Act of 1988, and the
Protection from Harassment Act of 1997.5

According to the Telecommunications Act of 1984, it is considered a violation to transmit a

message that is deemed improper, menacing, or obscene. The Malicious Communications
Act 1988 , which has a broader scope, pertains to the legislation aimed at penalizing those
who engage in the act of sending letters or delivering products with the intention of inducing
fear or distress.6

Protection From Harassment Act 1997

Section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 stipulates that individuals are
prohibited from engaging in conduct that can be classified as harassment towards another
person, or conduct that they are aware of or should be aware of as constituting harassment
towards another person. As per the provisions outlined under Section 2A of the Act, the act
of stalking necessitates the satisfaction of three specific circumstances.

1) Course of Conduct

2) A series of actions that violate Section 1 as outlined in the legislation.

3) A pattern of behavior that constitutes stalking.

The Harassment Act does not make an explicit effort to provide a definition for stalking.
Rather, Section 2A (3) of the Act enumerates many behaviors that might be seen as
constituting stalking.

5
Munasinghe, Paramie, and Kushanthi Harasgama. "A Comparative Analysis of Cyberstalking Legislations in UK,
Singapore and Sri Lanka." SSRN, August 12, 2021. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3903800.

6
Maple, Carsten, Emma Short, and Antony Brown. Cyberstalking in the United Kingdom: An analysis of the ECHO
pilot survey. University of Bedfordshire, 2011.
 • An individual who is being stalked

• initiating communication or making an effort to establish touch with an individual

• The act of observing an individual's utilization of the internet or electronic communication.

• The act of disseminating any declaration or other content that is relevant or seemingly
connected to an individual.

• Engaging in surveillance or monitoring of an individual;

• Tampering with the possessions or belongings of another individual.

The provided list is not all-encompassing or exhaustive. The determination of whether a

course of action may be classified as stalking necessitates an assessment of whether the
behavior in question would cause distress to a reasonable individual. If the stalker is proven
guilty of the offense outlined in Section 2A, they might face a maximum penalty of six
months of imprisonment or a monetary punishment.

Section 4A encompasses a graver violation, characterized by the presence of the subsequent

components: The phenomenon under consideration is a consistent and repetitive set of
actions that can be classified as stalking. This behavior instills a sense of terror in the
targeted individual, since there is a reasonable expectation of violence being inflicted against
them on several occasions. Alternatively, it induces substantial levels of worry or distress
that significantly impede their normal daily functioning. Examples of substantial adverse
impacts include alterations in the victim's commuting routine, job schedule, or occupational
circumstances, with the decline in the victim's bodily and emotional well-being. Engaging in
such behavior is subject to a maximum imprisonment period of five years, and the court
possesses the jurisdiction to impose a restraining order pursuant to Section 5, therefore
prohibiting the offender from further communication with the victim. In addition to pursuing
legal action, a victim has the option to petition the civil court for an injunction as a means of
preventing further harassment and seeking compensation for incurred losses.7

Significant Legal Cases

7
Brown, Antony, Marcia Gibson, and Emma Short. "Modes of Cyberstalking and Cyberharassment: Measuring the
negative effects in the lives of victims in the UK." (2017).
R v. Burstow

The accused in Burstow was convicted by the Crown Court for inflicting severe bodily
damage upon the victim through a sustained series of silent phone calls. The offender was
attributed with causing the depression experienced by the victim.

R v. Ireland

In the case of R v. Ireland, the Court of Appeals expanded the interpretation of the offense of
assault by ruling that a sequence of phone calls followed by silence might be seen as
constituting an attack. Assault typically occurs when the capacity to exert force
instantaneously is present, although the Irish Court has introduced the possibility of remote
attacks.

R v. Johnson

In the case of R v. Johnson, the Court of Appeal upheld the appellant's conviction for public
nuisance, which was established via the appellant's persistent engagement in making obscene
telephone calls over a duration of five and a half years.
 2.United States of America
The issue of stalking in the United States is addressed through a combination of state and
federal legislation, which is attributed to the federal character of the country 8. State laws
can be categorized into three major classifications:

 Statutes lacking explicit provisions pertaining to the matter of online stalking

 Statutes, including some facets of cyber stalking
 Statutes explicitly targeting the subject of cyber stalking

The state legislation that does not encompass provisions for cyber stalking are those that
specifically mandate physical pursuit criteria or fail to acknowledge the act of stalking using
electronic communication technologies. An illustrative instance may be found in the anti-
stalking Act of Maryland, which imposes certain criteria pertaining to the physical pursuit of
individuals.

Certain states may possess legislation pertaining to telephone harassment that proves to be
sufficient in addressing instances of internet stalking. Certain states have made efforts to
tackle this matter by modifying their current state legislation to encompass internet
communication.9

The second group of laws pertains to legislation that addresses specific aspects of
cyberbullying. The inclusion of electronic communication under stalking legislation is
observed; nonetheless, these laws exhibit limitations in adequately addressing concerns like
third-party harassment and communications that are not directly transmitted to the targeted
individual. The New York state legislation effectively handles the matter of electronic device
stalking, but it lacks provisions to address two distinct scenarios:

 where the stalker disseminates information through a blog post or website rather than
directly targeting the victim

8
Goodno, Naomi Harlin. "Cyberstalking, a new crime: Evaluating the effectiveness of current state and federal
laws." Mo. L. Rev. 72 (2007): 125.
9
Gray, David, et al. "Fighting Cybercrime after 'United States v. Jones.'" The Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology (1973-), vol. 103, no. 3, 2013, pp. 745–801. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43895378.
  where the stalker encourages third parties to engage in harassment against the victim.

In addition, several pieces of legislation mandate the satisfaction of the "credible threat"
criterion in order to establish the conduct of stalking. In both Louisiana and North Carolina,
there is state legislation that mandates the recipient of harassing electronic communication to
be the victim. The statutes in Florida and Mississippi also provide concern since they
necessitate that the message be specifically targeted at an individual. The existing legislation
lacks provisions that adequately address the issue of third-party harassment in the form of
stalking.10

The third classification of state statutes includes legislative measures that pertain to various
facets of cyber stalking. The states of Washington, Ohio, and Rhode Island have enacted
legislation specifically addressing the issue of third-party harassment arising from online
stalking. Despite the presence of distinct provisions for offline stalking, three states have
enacted legislation specifically addressing online stalking.
Civil protection orders may be obtained against those engaged in cyber stalking, contingent
upon the specific provisions outlined in state legislation regulating civil protection orders.
Protection orders serve to restrict the stalker from engaging in any kind of communication,
holding firearms, engaging in acts of harassment and abuse, and any other directives that the
Court deems appropriate. In the event of a violation, the Court has the authority to commence
contempt of court proceedings against the individual who committed the violation.11

Additionally, there are three prominent federal laws that address the issue of harassing
behavior. The individual laws in question are:

 The Interstate Communications Act

 Federal Telephone Harassment Statute
 Federal Interstate Stalking Punishment and Prevention Act

The Interstate Communications Act serves as a legal framework that forbids the transmission
of interstate threats with the intention of causing harm to another individual. However, it is
10
D'Ovidio, Robert, and James Doyle. "A study on cyberstalking: Understanding investigative hurdles." FBI L.
Enforcement Bull. 72 (2003): 10.
11
Smith, Alison M. Protection of Children Online: Federal and State Laws Addressing Cyberstalking,
Cyberharassment, and Cyberbullying. Congressional Research Service, 2009.
 imperative that the threat in question involve the intention to cause harm or abduct an
individual. The manner of communication should be such that an individual of sound
judgment would perceive it to be of a significant and grave character. However, the current
legislation does not adequately cover the issue of cyber stalking, which involves persistent
harassment without any explicit threat of physical harm.

The Federal Telephone Harassment Statute, which was initially enacted in 1934, underwent
an amendment in 2006 to specifically target the issue of cyber stalking. The scope of
telecommunication devices has been broadened to encompass any device or program that
facilitates communication through the utilization of the internet. The legislation stipulates a
penalty of a two-year jail sentence for the act of utilizing telecommunication equipment with
the intent to harass, mistreat, or intimidate an individual. Nevertheless, the Act has some
significant limitations. One significant aspect is the necessity of communication to maintain
anonymity. Furthermore, it should be noted that the Act specifically applies to instances of
direct communication and does not adequately address the issue of third-party harassment
that may be incited by the cyberstalker.12

The Federal Interstate Stalking Punishment and Prevention Act of 1996 has provisions that
expressly address the issue of cyber stalking. The aforementioned provision disallows the
utilization of interactive computer devices by those who possess the intention to inflict harm,
cause fatality, engage in harassment, or induce significant emotional distress. The original
requirement stipulated that the defendant must have crossed state lines, but a 2006
amendment removed this restriction. In comparison to other federal laws, the aforementioned
act is more effective because it doesn't require a serious threat level and can be used for more
than just anonymous texts. Nevertheless, the current legislation seems inadequate in
addressing instances of harassment perpetrated by individuals not directly involved in the
situation.13

12
McCall, Jamie M., and Shawn A. Weede. "United States v. Matusiewicz: Lessons Learned from the First Federal
Prosecution of Cyberstalking Resulting in Death." US Att'ys Bull. 64 (2016): 17.
13
Marcum, Catherine D., and George E. Higgins. "A systematic review of cyberstalking victimization and offending
behaviors." American journal of criminal justice 46 (2021): 882-910.
 Indian Legal System
The conventional depiction of stalkers as a male individual donning a black coat, who
pursues a female subject within dimly lit alleyways during inclement weather conditions, has
undergone transformation during the passage of time. Stalking encompasses more than just
the act of unwelcome pursuit, as it also includes the repetitive nature of making phone calls
or mailing unsolicited letters. 14The emergence of technical developments has led to the
expansion and diversification of stalking, manifesting in the contemporary phenomenon
known as cyber stalking. The phenomenon is distinguished by recurrent instances of
victimization. 15The majority of developed nations have implemented laws that explicitly or
implicitly classify this act as a criminal offense. The case of State (Cyber Cell) v Yogesh
Pandurang Prabhu16 provided a precise and accurate definition of cyber stalking.

"Cyber stalking refers to a criminal act when an individual engages in persistent harassment
of a target by electronic means, such as email, instant messaging, or posting messages on
websites or online forums. A cyberstalker capitalizes on the inherent anonymity provided by
the Internet to engage in stalking behavior towards their target while evading detection."

Indian Penal Code

Prior to the year 2013, the legal framework in India did not have a specific and legally
binding delineation of the terms "stalking" or "cyber-stalking." The recognition of stalking as
a criminal offense in India occurred subsequent to the enactment of the 2013 Criminal Law
Amendment Act, wherein Section 354D was included in the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Section 507 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

This section focuses on the subject of criminal intimidation facilitated via anonymous
communication. This clause establishes the illegality of a stalker's attempt to withhold
information from his victim regarding the identity of those who pose a threat to her. As a
result, the characteristic anonymity of cyberstalking is maintained. This clause is applicable
14
Keswani, H. "Cyberstalking: A critical study." Bharti Law Rev (2017): 131-48.
15
Sakshi, M., & Vashishth, A. (2022). An analysis of cybercrime with special reference to cyber stalking. Journal
of Positive School Psychology, 1279-1287.

16
C.C. NO. 3700686/PS/2009
in cases when the individual engaging in stalking behavior actively attempts to hide or
obscure their true identity.

Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

The definition of obscenity may be found in Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The
act of transmitting explicit materials to the target via a social media platform, electronic mail,
or text messaging aligns with the parameters including cyberstalking. The individual
engaging in stalking behavior can be deemed culpable for a violation as per Section 292 of
the Indian Penal Code, provided that they attempt to corrupt the moral values of the targeted
individual by transmitting explicit material over online means, with the specific intention of
ensuring that the recipient perceives, observes, or listens to the content included therein.

Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

This particular phrase can be employed in cases when a man infringes upon a woman's right
to privacy, for instance, by sending unsolicited electronic emails or engaging in nasty online
discourse about her. If the individual is shown to have committed any of these actions,
Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) may be applicable. The subject matter of this
section pertains to the act of criminal intimidation conducted via anonymous communication.
This clause establishes the illegality of a stalker's attempt to withhold information from their
victim regarding the identity of those who pose a threat to their safety. As a result, the
characteristic anonymity of cyberstalking is maintained.

Information Technology Act 200

The Information Technology Act of 2000 is a legislation that was enacted in India with the
aim of providing legal recognition to electronic transactions and promoting electronic
governance.

Section 67 of the Information Technology Act

This section is an exact replication of Section 292A as stated in the Indian Penal Code. This
section pertains to the electronic manifestation of explicit content. Consequently, this part
pertains to the topic of internet stalking. In the event that an individual engaged in stalking
behavior attempts to disseminate explicit content pertaining to the targeted individual using
digital platforms, namely in electronic format, with the intention of subjecting the victim to
harassment, legal consequences may be imposed upon the perpetrator under Section 67 of the
Information Technology Act.

Section 67A of the Information Technology Act

This section pertains to the topic of cyberstalking. The inclusion of this provision occurred
subsequent to the revision made in 2008. According to the stipulations outlined in the
legislation, if an individual engaged in stalking behavior attempts to disseminate any sort of
sexually explicit content by electronic means, such as emails, messages, or social media
platforms, they will be subject to legal prosecution under Section 67A of the Information
Technology Act. Consequently, they will face appropriate punitive measures as prescribed by
the law.

Section 67B of the Information Technology Act

The inclusion of this section was introduced by the Amendment Act of 2008, marking its
inaugural appearance. This section pertains to those who engage in stalking behaviors
specifically targeting minors below the age of 18. These stalkers distribute explicit content
portraying minors involved in sexual activities with the intention of instilling fear and
distress in their victims.

Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 354C of the Indian Penal
Code

In order to instill feelings of despair and vulnerability inside the targeted individual, the
perpetrator may engage in unauthorized access to the victim's online account, thereafter
disseminating personal photographs of the victim on various social media platforms. Both
aforementioned clauses seek to establish legal prohibitions against the publication or
capturing of photos of an individual's private actions without their explicit agreement.

Section 66E has a broader scope since it uses the term "any person" to refer to the victim, in
contrast to Section 345C which is gender-specific. As per the stipulations outlined in section
354C, it is imperative that the individual subjected to harm or mistreatment meets the criteria
of being identified as a female.

Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code encompasses the phenomenon of voyeurism. The
clause's scope is restricted since it requires the individual affected to specifically identify as a
"woman" in order to qualify. In contrast, Section 66E of the Information Technology Act
encompasses voyeurism to a greater extent than Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code. In
Section 66E, the term "any individual" is used to denote the victim. Consequently, justice can
be pursued under this article irrespective of the gender of the victim. In the event that the
aggrieved party is male, he possesses the legal recourse to initiate legal proceedings under
Section 66E of the Information Technology Act of 2000.
Loopholes in current Scenario

Extra territoriality of Offenders

The matter of territorial jurisdiction remains inadequately resolved within the framework of the
Information Technology Act of 2000 and the subsequent Information Technology Amendment
Act of 2008. The subject of jurisdiction is addressed in several parts of the document, including
parts 46, 48, 57, and 61, which discuss the adjudication process and the appeal procedure.
Section 80 of the legislation delineates the authority bestowed upon police officers to lawfully
enter and perform searches on public premises, specifically pertaining to matters involving
cyber-crime and related offenses. Cybercrimes refer to criminal activities that are facilitated by
the use of computers. In instances when an individual unlawfully gains access to another person's
email account, particularly when the victim is located in a different state or nation, the
identification of the appropriate jurisdiction responsible for addressing the offense might provide
challenges. In circumstances involving jurisdictional issues, police officials often strive to evade
acknowledgment of complaints made by victims. Given the absence of geographical constraints
on cybercrimes, it becomes imperative to address the matter of jurisdiction and identify the
pertinent factors that must be taken into account in such circumstances. Further clarification is
required about the allocation of jurisdiction to a certain state for the handling of cybercrime
matters. 17

A significant issue occurs when the legal frameworks of one nation are incongruous with those
of another one. There may be instances whereby the actions of an individual engaging in stalking
behavior might be subject to legal consequences in one nation, but not necessarily constituting a
criminal offense in another jurisdiction. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as a
jurisdictional issue. In instances of this nature, the issue of enforcement further emerges. In this
particular scenario, it is imperative to foster collaboration between the two nations. Extradition
policies are relevant in this context.

Equality before Law

17
Smith, Kane J., Gurpreet Dhillon, and Ella Kolkowska. "Important Issues for Preventing Cyberstalking in India."
(2019).
The provision of 'equality before law' is enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The
examination of our Constitution reveals the presence of clauses guaranteeing equality; yet, a
careful analysis of the legislative framework exposes a significant degree of gender
discrimination. The provisions exhibit a greater inclination towards the protection of women,
perceiving them as a vulnerable segment of society. However, it should be noted that gender
inequity is not applicable in the current context. Currently, the sole provision within the Indian
Penal Code that bears some direct relevance to the offense of cyber stalking is Section 354D.
The clause clearly demonstrates that its primary focus is the protection of women. 18

Based on the analysis of the reading section, it can be observed that the lawmakers have made
the assumption that "man" is always the perpetrator or stalker, while "woman" is consistently the
victim in all cases. Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code specifically deals with the matter of
violating the modesty of a woman. This particular section could be rephrased using the term "any
person" instead of "woman". A woman who engages in stalking behavior has the capacity to
violate a man's sense of modesty by transmitting explicit content via the internet, including
emails or texts. Therefore, it is imperative for lawmakers to endeavor to safeguard both men and
women, rather than just focusing on the protection of women, from the detrimental consequences
of cyber stalking.

Vague Definition

The inclusion of a proviso in Section 354D has resulted in the exclusion of some behaviors from
being categorized as stalking under its meaning. The exclusions mentioned are derived from
Section 1(3) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, a piece of law in the United Kingdom
that addresses the issue of harassment. However, the validity of the wide wording of the
exemption, particularly the last clause that implicitly permits breaches of privacy and
confidentiality under the condition of reasonableness and justification in the given
circumstances, is still to be determined. This section is characterized by the limitation of
specificity and grants law enforcement agencies discretionary powers to encroach upon an
individual's privacy.

Recommendations
18
Miftha, Ameema, Marc Conrad, and Marcia Gibson. "CYBERSTALKING IN INDIA: CHALLENGES ON THE
SOCIAL SIDE AND THE UNDERLYING CONTRADICTIONS."
Self-Regulation

The practice of self-regulation among computer and internet users. The use of self-regulation
strategies might potentially serve as an effective approach in mitigating the incidence of cyber
stalking. The process of establishing a robust code of conduct involves the adoption of a policy
of self-restraint by both computer users and service providers. The implementation of self-
regulatory measures by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) can significantly contribute to the
mitigation of online criminal activities. To start, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have the
capacity to construct a unified ethical code of conduct that governs their provision of internet
services and facilities to customers. Users may also establish the conditions by means of a
written agreement that mandates their abstention from participating in unlawful conduct.
Additionally, it is possible for the contract to include a provision stating that any breach of these
conditions would lead to the discontinuation of internet services.

Universal Legal Regulatory Mechanism

The concept of a universal legal regulatory mechanism refers to a system or framework that is
applicable and enforceable across different jurisdictions and legal systems. This mechanism aims
to provide a set of universally accepted rules and standards that govern

The mitigation of issues stemming from divergent legal frameworks and procedural systems
across nations might be significantly alleviated with the universal recognition and integration of
substantial cybercrimes into the criminal legislation of all countries. The implementation of this
approach would provide uniformity in the classification of various forms of cybercrimes. Given
the extensive ramifications associated with these offenses, it is imperative that stringent and
perhaps exceptional sanctions be imposed upon cyber offenders as a means of deterring their
involvement in cybercrime.

Separate Legislation and Guidelines

The implementation of distinct legislation and guidelines is necessary.

Currently, there are only two sections within the discourse that address the topic of
cyberstalking. However, it is important to note that only section 354D makes an attempt to
provide a definition for cyberstalking. Nevertheless, this definition is insufficient as it solely
states that cyberstalking involves the act of monitoring a woman through the internet. It fails to
specify the duration of time an individual must spend viewing another person's online profile in
order to be classified as engaging in stalking behavior. Given the present state of technology
advancements, it is feasible to monitor user behavior in cases where individuals have been
reported, provided that there are suitable standards and the support of social media applications
to facilitate such monitoring by the government.
Conclusion
A comparison of the legislative methods to cyberstalking and online harassment in India, the
United States, and the United Kingdom finds substantial disparities in the techniques and
processes used by these nations to tackle the rising threat of online abuse. In India, cyberstalking
and online harassment are largely governed by the Information Technology Act of 2000 and the
Indian Penal Code, with a focus on penalizing the sending of offensive or frightening
communications. However, opponents contend that the Indian legal framework is vague and
incomplete, making it impossible to properly combat new kinds of online harassment. The
United States, on the other hand, has a more decentralized approach, with different federal and
state laws, such as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and state-specific acts, covering aspects
of cyberstalking and harassment. While this technique allows for some flexibility, it can lead to
discrepancies and differences in cyber harassment legislation enforcement among countries.

In contrast, the United Kingdom has enacted more extensive and centralized regulation, such as
the Communications Act 2003, which criminalizes the use of electronic communication
networks for harassment. In addition, the United Kingdom has taken a systematic strategy to
combating online abuse, involving law enforcement, internet service providers, and civil society
groups. Despite these distinctions, all three nations confront similar issues in terms of
enforcement, public awareness, and the need for law change to keep up with the ever-changing
nature of cyberstalking and online harassment. The comparative research emphasizes the
significance of finding a balance between free expression and protecting individuals from online
abuse, as well as the ongoing need to update and revise legislative frameworks in order to
successfully manage this complex issue in the digital era.
 Bibliography

 Shambhavee, H. M. "Cyber-Stalking: Threat to People or Bane to Technology." Int. J. Trend Sci.

Res. Dev 3 (2019): 350-355
 Cassie Cox, Protecting Victims of Cyberstalking, Cyberharassment, and Online Impersonation
through Prosecutions and Effective Laws, 54 Jurimetrics 277 (2014),
http://www.jstor.org/stable/24395601.

 Katyal, Neal Kumar. "Criminal Law in Cyberspace." University of Pennsylvania Law Review,
vol. 149, no. 4, 2001, pp. 1003–114. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3312990.
 Kaur, Puneet, et al. "A systematic literature review on cyberstalking. An analysis of past
achievements and future promises." Technological Forecasting and Social Change 163 (2021):
120426.
 Munasinghe, Paramie, and Kushanthi Harasgama. "A Comparative Analysis of Cyberstalking
Legislations in UK, Singapore and Sri Lanka." SSRN, August 12, 2021.
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3903800.

 Maple, Carsten, Emma Short, and Antony Brown. Cyberstalking in the United Kingdom: An
analysis of the ECHO pilot survey. University of Bedfordshire, 2011.
 Brown, Antony, Marcia Gibson, and Emma Short. "Modes of Cyberstalking and
Cyberharassment: Measuring the negative effects in the lives of victims in the UK." (2017).
 Goodno, Naomi Harlin. "Cyberstalking, a new crime: Evaluating the effectiveness of current state
and federal laws." Mo. L. Rev. 72 (2007): 125.
 Gray, David, et al. "Fighting Cybercrime after 'United States v. Jones.'" The Journal of Criminal
Law and Criminology (1973-), vol. 103, no. 3, 2013, pp. 745–801. JSTOR,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/43895378.

 D'Ovidio, Robert, and James Doyle. "A study on cyberstalking: Understanding investigative
hurdles." FBI L. Enforcement Bull. 72 (2003): 10.
 Smith, Alison M. Protection of Children Online: Federal and State Laws Addressing
Cyberstalking, Cyberharassment, and Cyberbullying. Congressional Research Service, 2009.
 McCall, Jamie M., and Shawn A. Weede. "United States v. Matusiewicz: Lessons Learned from
the First Federal Prosecution of Cyberstalking Resulting in Death." US Att'ys Bull. 64 (2016): 17.
 Marcum, Catherine D., and George E. Higgins. "A systematic review of cyberstalking
victimization and offending behaviors." American journal of criminal justice 46 (2021): 882-910.
 Keswani, H. "Cyberstalking: A critical study." Bharti Law Rev (2017): 131-48.
 Sakshi, M., & Vashishth, A. (2022). An analysis of cybercrime with special reference to cyber
stalking. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 1279-1287.

 C.C. NO. 3700686/PS/2009

 Smith, Kane J., Gurpreet Dhillon, and Ella Kolkowska. "Important Issues for Preventing
Cyberstalking in India." (2019).
 Miftha, Ameema, Marc Conrad, and Marcia Gibson. "CYBERSTALKING IN INDIA:
CHALLENGES ON THE SOCIAL SIDE AND THE UNDERLYING CONTRADICTIONS."