By- Vikap Sharma

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India AIR 2015 SC 1523

In this era of the Internet, people across the world have moved towards technology which has led them to use the Internet for a vast amount of time. Internet helps people disseminate the data on the social platform which within a fraction of second moves around the world, and there are certain information which creates disharmony, ill-will, hatred, enmity or affects the public tranquility especially in India where more than two religions are practiced and which supposedly could create disharmony in the Nation. In the year 2020, the usage of the Internet and the number of offences has increased in a huge number. During the research, the usage of Internet in India has increased, when the Judgment was passed earlier in the year 2015, the number was around 259.88 Million and in the year 2020, it has reached to 564.5 Million and with this growth, by the year 2023, it will cross 600 Million[1]. To govern such offences Legislature intending to control such aforesaid offences have amended the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as IT Act, 2000), and introduced Section 66A by the virtue of the Amendment Act of 2009 with the effect from 27.10.2009.

Section 66A says:

Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc. -Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,-

  • any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or
  • any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device; or
  • any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages,

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.

Explanation -For the purpose of this section, terms “electronic mail” and “electronic mail message” means a message or information created or transmitted or received on a computer, computer system, computer resource or communication device including attachments in text, image, audio, video and any other electronic record, which may be transmitted with the message.

However, in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India[2], Section 66A of IT Act, 2000 was challenged. It was challenged because it violates the Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a)of the Indian Constitution. In this article, the author has criticized the Judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the year 2015, wherein Hon’ble Justice RF Nariman and Hon’ble Justice J. Chelameswar held the Section 66A of IT Act, 2000 to be Unconstitutional.

Background of the Case

Mumbai Police arrested Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Srinivasan in the year 2012 for posting their dismay at bandh in the wake of Bal Thackrey’s demise. These girls posted on the social networking site called “Facebook”. Although the girls’ arrest was discharged it was presumed that police have abused its authority by invoking Section66 A of IT Act, 2000 which they claim to be a breach of the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression.

The offences under Section 66A being the cognizable offences, where the police can arrest or investigate without a warrant.

However, in January 2013, the Central Government issued an advisorywherethepolicehavenopowertoarrestwithouthavingpriorpermissionfromDeputy Commissioner, Inspector General of Police, or any other officer senior to him/her.

The Writ petition in the public interest was filed under Article 32 in Supreme Court, where the Constitutional validity of Sections 66A, 69A[3] of IT Act, 2000 were challenged.


The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking to declare Section 66A, 69A and 79 of IT Act, 2000 unconstitutional on the grounds of the phraseology used in these Sections are broad and vague and it violates freedom of speech and expression which is guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of Indian Constitution.

They also argued that the general terms which have been used in these Sections like, menacing, offensive, annoyance, inconvenience, etc. have not been defined in the Act.

Petitioner Arguments
  1. The petitioner claimed that the basis of Section 66A of IT Act, 2000 is to give rise to the new forms of crimes which is inappropriate. Also, it was contended that Section 66B to 67 C of IT Act, 2000, and numerous Section of Indian Penal Code are satisfactory to deal with these crimes.
  2. 66A of IT Act, 2000 infringes the right to free speech and expression. Also, it cannot be protected by any of the eight subjects covered under Article 19(2).
  3. Also, it was claimed that annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill-will were outside the purview of Article 19(2).
  4. It was also argued that the offences mentioned are vague and will allow the authorities to be arbitrary and whimsical as they like in booking person under the said Section.
  5. It was also claimed by the Petitioners that there is no relation between Section 66A & Public order or incitement to an offence which is enunciated under Article 19(2).
Critical approach

Since the judgment was conceded in the year 2015, the world has moved towards the internet in a huge number. The demand of internet has drastically changed and with the usage of internet, the offences like publishing information which is offensive or has threatening character, causing annoyance, promoting hatred or ill-will towards the society have also increased. Legislature with the motive to prevent or govern such aforesaid offences introduced Section 66A which provides the punishment for sending offensive messages, but the same was struck down by Supreme Court in the year 2015 stating that the particular Section is Unconstitutional.

The author in this article has criticized the decision of the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India[4] in the following points:

1.The Objective of introducing Section 66A

To study the Constitutionality of a statue or any of its provisions it is relevant to consider its object and reason. Along with this, the legislative history of the statute is also to be seen. It would help the Court in arriving at a more objective and useful approach[5].

The chief objective or reason to introduce this particular section is to upsurge the use of technology. It has given a rise in crimes like publishing sexually explicit materials in electronic form, publishing fake news about the religions which can create disharmony or disturb public order in the society, e-commerce frauds like phishing, identity theft, or an offensive messages[6]. To govern and prevent these aforesaid offences, penal provisions should be included in the IT Act and with that Section 66A was introduced, however, the Supreme Court failed to consider the objective of Legislature in introducing this Section.

2.Constitutional approach

Reasonable Restriction: Reasonableness of restriction has to be viewed from the point of view of the citizen and also from the point of the problem before the legislature[7]. Public order and incitement to an offence under Article 19(2) will prove Section 66A’s Constitutionality.

Preservation of public order is a ground for limiting the freedom of speech and expression. This ground did not occur in the Constitution as framed in 1950. It was added by the Constitution (1st Amendment) Act, 1951[8] and so does the ground for incitement to an offence.

Although the Section was holding the freedom of speech and expression but the Article 19(1)(a) Freedom of Speech and Expression is not absolute, it has a reasonable restriction given under Article19(2).

The article read as:

“Article 19 (1). All citizens shall have the right:

  • To freedom of speech and expression (B)…….……………………………………..


(2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause, in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence”.

The zest of the Article 19 (1) (a) says that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to pursue, receive and promulgate information and ideas through any media and regardless of state boundaries, providing with some reasonable restrictions enunciated under Article19(2).

As per Section 66A is concerned, the petitioners were right holding that this Section is against the freedom of speech and expression, but it was with accordance to the eight subjects which are mentioned under Article 19(2) in terms of ‘public order’ and ‘incitement to an offence’.

In Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP[9] and Virendra v. State of Punjab[10], held that “Not only such utterance as are directly intended to incite disorder but also those that have the tendency to lead to disorder. Thus, punishment made for the utterances made with the intention to hurt the religious feelings of any class of person is valid. It is so because it imposes a restriction on the right of free speech in the interest of public order.

Since petitioners in the case were mostly relied on the judgments passed by the Courts of United States of America, it was well said in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited and Others v. Union of India and Others[11] that “While examining the Constitutionality of a law which is alleged to contravene Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, we can solely be guided by the decisions of the Supreme Court of the USA. The outline of Article 19(1)(a) and of Article 19(1)(g) of our Constitution is different from the pattern of the First Amendment to the American Constitution as it is absolute in its terms. The rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution are read along with clause (2) and (6) of Article 19 to carve out areas in respect of which valid legislation can be made.

In P. Lakshmi Devi[12] case, this Court has observed, “Even if two views are there possibly, one making the Statue Constitutional and the other making it Unconstitutional, the former must prevail and the Court must make efforts to uphold the Constitutional validity of a Statue, unlike a policy decision, where the executive decisions could be rendered invalid on the ground of malafide, unreasonableness and arbitrariness alone.”

In Mark Netto v. Government of Kerala and Others[13],  Supreme Court observed that “The Court must make every effort to sustain the Constitutional validity of the Statute, even if that requires giving the strained construction or narrowing down its scope.”

Section 66A of IT Act, 2000 was introduced in order to maintain public order by the legislature. In Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh v. Ram Manohar Lohia[14], Apex Court held that restriction cannot be held within meaning of Article 19(2) if the restriction has no proximate relationship to the achievement of Public Order. The expression “Public Order” is identical to public peace, safety, and tranquillity[15]. Therefore, Section 66A was in view to prevent and maintain the public order and any other offences which are mentioned in the section thereof, and with reference from the judgment of Ram Manohar Lohia, Section 66A has a proximate relationship to the achievement of public order, and, therefore, Section 66A is Constitutional.

  • Internet media is a different platform from Print media

Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras [16] has affirmed that “Although Article 19(1)(a) does not specifically states the freedom of the press the judicial decisions have repeatedly affirmed that the Article is sufficiently wide to include the freedom of the press. However, the medium of speech being the internet differs from other mediums. They are stated as:

  1. Accessibility: Print media can only be access by literate people but as far as the internet is concerned, the access of the internet is for literate as well for illiterate people in the way of videos.
  2. Reach-ability: Print Media is limited to one state or area, but the reach-ability of the internet media is all across the world.
  3. Using advance way by morphing the pictures on the Internet is easy rather than of  print media
  4. Sexual harassment is easy on the Internet
  5. Maintaining anonymity is easy on internet, can be reveal only after thorough investigation.

All the above factors clear that there is a distinction between print media as opposed to the internet, therefore, the need for separate offences for free speech on the internet is very important especially during this internet age. However, the Supreme Court failed to recognize the importance of Section 66A, and the difference between both print media and the internet was neglected. [17]

  • Vagueness is not a ground to declare a Statute Unconstitutional.

If any statute or provision of an Act is ambiguous or broad, then it cannot be a ground to declare the provision Unconstitutional. There is a plethora of cases, where the Supreme Court held that “vagueness is not a ground to declare Statue or Provision Unconstitutional, but it should be construed by the court with the intention of the Legislature.”

In the Namit Sharma case[18], “Supreme Court observed that vague provision is to be amended by the legislature to avoid any ambiguity or impartibility and to make it in consonance with Constitutional mandate.”

In K. A Abbas v. Union of India and Another[19], this Court observed that “This brings us to the manner of the exercise of control and restriction by the directions. An argument is when most of the regulations are vague. They leave no scope for the exercise of creative genius in the field of art. This poses the first question of whether the ‘void for vagueness’ doctrine is applicable. Reliance in this connection is placed Municipal Committee Amritsar and Another v. State of Rajasthan[20], “in that case a Division Bench laid down that an Indian Act cannot be declared invalid on the ground that it violates the due process clause.”

In State of Madhya Pradesh and Another v. Baldeo Prasad[21], the Supreme Court observed that “If a law is vague or appears to be, the Court must try to interpret it. The language permitting, the construction sought to be placed, should be in accordance with the intention of the legislature. If the law is open to diverse construction, the construction which consensuses best with the intention of the legislature and advances the purpose of legislation should be preferred.

  1. Let’s say, A posted a remark saying that the Pakistan Government is way better than Indian Government, and Pakistani’s are smarter than Indians. A makes this comment just to disturb the public order and create disharmony in Nation through social media. Section 66A was formed to govern such situations where remarks are being made through the internet and social media. This aforesaid Section provides punishment for disturbing public order.
  2. A and B work together in a company where they both share a video and bad comments about Prime Minister of the Country and also disgrace the National Flag by tearing it apart. Eventually, the post created havoc and annoyance in society by just sharing it on social media.
  1. Enforce Section 66A by way of prospective overruling[22];
  2. Construct the provision which can be in consonance to the intent of legislature;
  3. Remove the ambiguity from the provision; and
  4. Make a distinction between the offences which should be dealt under and by way of Section66A.

Shreya Singhal Judgment was passed in the year 2015, where Section 66A was struck down by ignoring the objective, intention of the legislature, and various principles of Article 19(2). We can certainly say that the need for Section 66A is now more than ever. The use of the internet and social media has increased more than it used to be especially during this Covid-19 situation.

People tend to post or share videos, messages on the social platforms, sometimes the incidents happen, where people don’t give a thought about it and share or post things which could lead to disturbing public tranquility. Many incidents happen, where people post or send grossly offensive messages which could lead to annoyance in the society.

The need of the hour is to enforce Section 66A by the virtue of prospective overruling and construct the provision in consonance to Article 19(2).

Internet in India is governed through Information Technology Act, 2000, and removing a provision that could prevent social media offences is not appropriate and especially in this Internet era, where it is way easier to disturb public order and easier for someone to incite for an offence.

[1] Total internet users in India | Statista Statista, (last visited Aug 18, 2020).

[2]Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523.

[3] Section 69A says: Power to issue directions for blocking for public access of any information through any Computer resource.- (1) Where the Central Government or any of its officer specially authorized by it in this behalf is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do, in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above, it may subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of the Government or intermediary to block for access by the public or cause to be blocked for access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource.

  • The procedure and safeguards subject to which such blocking for access by the public may be carried out, shall be such as may be prescribed.
  • The intermediary who fails to comply with the direction issued under sub-section (1) shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

[4]  Ibid 2

[5] Namit Sharma v. Union of India, 2013 (1) SCC 745.

[6] Ibid 2

[7] From Kesavananda Bharati cited in State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, (2005) 8 SCC 534, 563.

[8] V.N Shukla, Constitution of India.

[9] Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP, AIR 1957 SC 620.

[10] Virendra v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 896.

[11] Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited and Others v. Union of India and Other, (1985) 1 SCC 641.

[12] P. Lakshmi Devi, (2008) 4 SCC720.

[13] Mark Netto v. Government of Kerala and Others, AIR 1979 SC(83).

[14] Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh v. Ram Manohar Lohia, AIR 1960 SC633.

[15] Ibid 7

[16] Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124.

[17]Secretory Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India v. Cricket Association of Bengal (1995) 2 SCC 161.

[18] Ibid 5

[19]  K. A Abbas v. Union of India and Another, (1971) 2 SCR 446.

[20] Municipal Committee Amritsar and Another v. State of Rajasthan, 1970 AIR 2182.

[21] State of Madhya Pradesh and Another v. Baldeo Prasad, 1961 (1) SCR 970.

[22] Golaknath v. State of Punjab, 1967 AIR 1643.


By- Aayushi Mehta

Is the protection of consumers the need for an hour? Are frauds and misleading of the customers as deceitful as other crimes in the society? Will the 2019 act turn out to be beneficial to the consumers as in comparison to the repealed act?

Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Rohit Sharma[1]This is a case which was decided before the 1986 was repealed. In this case, an appeal filed against the decision of the District Forum by Bharti Airtel Ltd. was dismissed and was directed to pay punitive compensation to the Respondent. In this case, a complaint was filed by the complainant when once while downloading a file of 4 to 5 MB a sum of Rs. 200 was deducted from his account. When he approached the Respondent, he returned him (complainant) a sum of Rs. 148. So in this case the complainant filed a case before the District Forum to help him get the refund of the remaining Rs.52 that the company deducted.

So, in this case, the Forum ordered Bharti Airtel Ltd. to refund back the remaining sum of Rs. 52 to the complainant along with 9% interest plus litigation charges and punitive compensation of Rs. 2000. Aggrieved by the decision of the District Forum Bharti Airtel Ltd. approached the State Commission. Where the State Commission dismissed the appeal and ordered Bharti Airtel Ltd. and the order of the District Forum was considered binding.

Also, the Commission held that the Opposite Party had received the amount of consideration and also falls under the definition of consumer under section 2(d) of the 1986 act.

An urgent need was felt to repeal the act and bring a new act into force. Therefore, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 had repealed the act of 1986 as per Section 1(3) of the 2019 act.

This act brings about some major highlights:

  1. The District Forum has been renamed as the District Commission.
  • Earlier any appeal to be made against a decision of a District Forum required the opposite party to deposit a maximum sum of R. 25,000 which has now been detached. The present act makes it to 50% of the amount ordered by the District Commission.
  • The meaning of consumers under this act has now been widened. Consumer is said to include within its scope any person who buys any goods either through an online mode or offline or by way of any e-commerce.
  • Strict penalties can be imposed on suppliers who attempt to mislead the consumers by way of fake advertisements.
  • Also, this act has enabled consumers to save time and money by enabling them to seek hearing through video-conferencing. Not only does its emphasis on hearing through online mode but also on the filing of the case electronically by the consumer.
  • As any personal information given by a consumer is to be kept confidential by the seller and has thereby widened the scope of the term Unfair Trade Practices”. Any information is said not to be in violation of the Unfair Trade Practices only when the disclosure has been made in accordance with the provisions under any other law.
  • A separate regulator called the CCPA (Central Consumer Protection Authority) had been set up, where this act gives CCPA the right to impose a penalty on the manufacturer for false advertisements up to Rs. 10 lakhs and it also has the right to sentence imprisonment up to 2 years if it thinks fit. Further, if the offense is a subsequent offense, the fine can be extended to Rs. 50 lakhs and imprisonment up to a period of 5 years.
  • Further, the CCPA has also has the right of prohibiting the endorser from endorsing any misleading advertisements for a period of 1 year and whereas the offense becomes a subsequent offense, then the prohibition period can be extended to 3 years.
  • Also, as per the Consumer Dispute Redressal Committee  Rules, there need not be any fees for filing of cases up to Rs. 5 lakhs.
  • Further, the State Commissions have to furnish reports to the Central Government furnishing details on vacancies, disposal, the pendency of cases, and other matters on a quarterly basis.

What are the major changes this act has fetched?

Earlier the complaint in the Consumer Court could only be filed against the “seller” or “defendant” at the place where his (sellers) office is located whereas in contrary the 2019 act has permitted the consumer to file a complaint from the place where he resides or works.

This act has enabled the introduction of a separate regulator – Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA). Having no provision of product liability, the 2019 act had widened its scope by allowing the consumers to seek compensation for any harm caused by product or services. The term “product liability” includes product manufacturer, product service provider and product seller within its scope. Further, settlement can now be sought through between the consumer and the defendant by way of mediation under this act.

Having a pecuniary jurisdiction up to Rs. 20 lakhs at District Level, Rs. 20 lakhs to Rs. 1 crore at the State Level and above 1 crore at the National Level, the 2019 act has brought up the pecuniary jurisdiction up to Rs. 1 crore, Rs. 1 crore to 10 crore and Rs. 10 crores and above respectively at each level.

Also, the act has extended its arms by marking a provision related to the e-commerce under its scope. In other words, all the rules related to direct selling has been extended to e-commerce.

Thereby, the basic aim of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is positioned to protect the consumers from any frauds and provide them with a steady disposal of the dispute either by regular proceedings or by way of settlement. As quoted by well-known freedom fighter and Indian Lawyer Mr. Mahatma Gandhi Ji:

“Customers are the most important visitor on our premises, they are not dependent on us, we are dependent on them. They are not an interruption in our work. They are the purpose of it. They are not outsiders in our business. They are part of it; we are not doing them a favour by serving them. They are doing us a favour by giving us an opportunity to do so”.

[1] Bharti Airtel Ltd.& Ors. Vs. Sh. Rohit Sharma, A.I.R. 2019 H.P. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Shimla


By-Ishita Pancholi

JUDGEMENT DATE: 14/08/2020

JUDGES: R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Facts & Issues

The land admeasuring 36 bighas 11 Biswas had a place with Gaon Sabha Luhar Heri, Delhi. The enormous degree of land in the village, including the previously mentioned land, was obtained by the Government by starting procedures under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was given and declaration under Section 6 of the Act came to be distributed. Bypassing the Award on ownership of the land was taken by the Government.

In the mentioned reference procedures, favored under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, it was the case of the respondents that as the land was not good for development, it was allowed on rent to the respondents to evacuate the “shora” and to make the land fit for development.

It is their case that considering the rent conceded by the Gaon Sabha, they have spent gigantic sum for the evacuation of “shora” and made the land fit for development, and proceeded under lock and key by developing the equivalent for over 30 years.

In the previously mentioned procedures alluded under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, the Civil Court has passed the judgment and pronouncement on 28.09.1989, announcing that the respondents-petitioners are qualified for pay for the degree of 87% and staying 13% is to be paid to the panchayat/Gaon Sabha.

As it is obvious from the proof that the respondents were placed under possession that they preceded under possession by developing the land the said decisions would not deliver any help with help of the instance of the appellants.

Then again on account of Maneklal Mansukhbhai depended on by learned senior guidance for the respondents it is obviously held by this Court guard under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is accessible to an individual who has an understanding of rent in support of himself however no rent has been executed and enlisted.

A comparable recommendation is additionally affirmed in the judgment of this Court on account of Hamzabi wherein this Court has held that Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 secures the ownership of people who have followed up on an agreement of offer yet in whose favor no legal deal deed is executed or enlisted.

As unmistakably respondents were placed under lock and key and the Panchayat has followed up on their proposition for the award of rent said case law of the respondents.


The Apex court held that we don’t discover any merits in these appeals to meddle with the decried judgment. In like manner, these civil appeals are dismissed with no structure as to costs.


By-Ishita Pancholi

JUDGEMENT DATE: 11/08/2020

JUDGES: Justices RD Dhanuka & Surendra Tavade


As indicated by the prosecution, on Nov 10, 1993, a resident of Nhava Sheva in Uran found an infant girl child abandoned near Sheva transport stand and took the baby to his home.

The family at that point reported the issue to nearby police, who arrested Kamlabai in the wake of finding that she was pregnant.

Police at that point took Kamlabai and the baby to the emergency clinic in Uran, however later moved them to Alibag Civil Hospital. Nonetheless, Kamlabai choked the baby girl in the medical clinic.

The appealing party was put apprehended. The announcements of witnesses were recorded. The Investigating Officer took blood tests of litigant/denounced just as the child and sent for concoction examination.

After culmination of examination, charge-sheet came to be filed against the litigant/accused under Sections 317 and 302 for the IPC before the educated Magistrate, Uran.

As the offence was only offense by the Court of Session, it was focused on the Court of Sessions at Alibaug. Charge (Exhibit 3) came to be filed against the appealing party/blamed under Section 317 and 302 for the IPC.

The appealing party argued not liable and professed to be attempted. The indictment has depended on the proof of upwards of 14 observers. The litigant/blamed didn’t lead any oral proof.

On experiencing the proof on record, the Trial Court, cleared the appealing party under Section 317 of the IPC, yet indicted her for the offence culpable under Section 302 of the IPC and condemned her to suffer life detainment and furthermore forced fine of Rs.1000/ – and in default guided her to experience thorough detainment for a quarter of a year. The said decried judgment is under test.


The appellant accused has favoured this appeal against the Judgment and Order went against her by the educated Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibaug in Sessions Case No.83 of 1994.

The appealing party is indicted for the offence culpable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and condemned to suffer detainment forever and to pay fine of Rs.1000/ – in default to suffer thorough detainment for a quarter of a year.

The appealing party is cleared for the offence culpable under Section 317 of the IPC. The State has not favoured intrigue against the said request of acquittal.


It is in this way demonstrated Dr. Archana Prabhu had analysed the said child when the said was alive just as the appealing party/denounced.

The overall state of child was well. On assessment of appealing party/charged, the clinical officer has opined that the appellant/denounced had conveyed the child.

But disavowal nothing is gotten the interrogation of Dr. Archana Prabhu by the barrier to doubt her proof.


The bench held that the prosecution has demonstrated the homicidal death of the baby and the way that nobody was around when the new-born child was killed except the convict.

It likewise found that the woman had thought process to carry out the wrongdoing as she needed to shroud her relationship and the pregnancy which took place 8 years after the demise of her husband.


By-Ishita Pancholi

JUDGES: Bharati Dangre J

ORDER DATE: 10/08/2020


As indicated by the victim who filed a complaint in January this year, she came to be in contact with the applicant by means of Facebook and she uploaded her portable number on the Facebook Account.

The applicant reached her and there used to visit telephonic discussions between the two. In 2019, she went to Uttar Pradesh which happened to be her local spot and the applicant additionally visited there.

At the case of the Applicant, rehashed physical guilty pleasure happened and some cash was likewise traded. A contention occurred between them, which brought about documenting the FIR by the prosecutrix. She had revealed about the occurrence to her dad and documented the grievance against him.

It has been claimed by the complainant, that contact was created between the two, because of which the FIR was stopped as she revealed the issue to her dad.

The Applicant opined that since they shared a nearby obligation of kinship, there was no complaint on her part on the demonstration of physical nearness. The candidate and the prosecutrix are major and it was the prosecutrix who energized the kinship. That later brought about being physical.

There was no protest on her part until the documenting of the grumbling in March 2020. However, one day when the relationship went bad, she documented the grumbling.

She has given the assent for the said demonstration. In any case, the candidate is behind the bars since, March 2020, in any event, when there was no instance of the coercive sexual act. Taking into account this, the candidate will be delivered on bail.

The Learned A.P.P. contended that the Medical Examination has not been done because of the pandemic. The candidate guarantees that he will help out the Investigating Officer for such an assessment. Since, the candidate guarantees that he will be accessible for the preliminary, which is the principal thought; he will be delivered.

The Court requested that the candidate will be delivered on abandon outfitting an individual obligation of Rs. 20, 000/ – alongside a couple of guarantees of a similar sum.

He will not straightforwardly or by implication make any prompting, danger, or guarantee to any individual familiar with realities in order to deter him from uncovering the realities to the Court or any Police Officer and he will not alter the proof. The Applicant will not give his private location to the Investigating Officer.

He will report for the Medical Examination when he is coordinated to do as such by the Investigating Officer. Considering the above reasons, the bail application is endorsed.

The concerned gatherings will act as per the said request that will be provided by the Advocate under his seal and mark.


The Bombay High Court granted bail to a man accused of rape by a 24-year old woman who becomes friends with him on Facebook. The accused was arrested on March 20, 2020, and has been in jail from that point forward.


By- Diksha Gupta

“If someone would have tied your hands and asked me to return all that pain and suffocations you’ve given to me; I won’t because I know how much that hurts”

Home is the safest place for anyone but it no longer seems like that. Neither it’s safe outside nor inside. The world is fighting a pandemic and another pandemic stands on its head. With a rapid increase in the number of coronavirus cases, a rapid rise can be seen in domestic violence cases as well.

Simply saying, Domestic Violence is violence or other abuse in a domestic setting such as in a marriage or cohabitation. But when the two words, Domestic Violence come together, the two words themselves strike terror in the lives of people that are affected by them.

When we think of living in a domestic setting, marriage, or cohabitation, we think of a safe environment where we live to have a happy, cheerful life, a place where our family is. But can you think of your safe & happy place turning into a living hell?

It is said that trust is the basis of every relationship, no matter if it is with your parents, husband, in-laws, or relatives. When someone is abused, the trust is broken. It is always just the physical abuse that is considered as Domestic Violence but in reality, domestic violence is a lot more than just physical abuse. Various types of abuse have been categorised as domestic violence under the Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act,2005, such as child abuse, senior abuse, honor-based violence such as honor killings, female genital mutilation (‘female circumcision’), forced marriage, & all forms of abuse by an intimate partner or former intimate partner, including psychological abuse and stalking.

Violence may start within an argument or even a fight but goes way beyond fighting. A desire to have control leads to violence. It is one of the methods abusers use to get their way. It’s not always necessary to hurt or harm the child to be considered as child abuse. Children can be hurt simply by seeing parental violence. Parent’s constant criticism no matter what good the child does is also a way to psychologically harm the child. We all are well aware of the fact that there are many non-violent ways in which a child can be punished.

The recent increase in domestic violence cases amid the lockdown is a matter of grave concern. Helpline numbers, email addresses, Whatsapp assistance facilities have been launched by the National Commission of Women to help & assist women suffering from this brutality in the wake of Covid-19 lockdown. Several states have also launched their helpline numbers.  But is this sufficient? In a country, where less than 50% of people have access to the internet, where less than 30% of the population is aware of NCW & its services?

Recently, a 45-year-old cook, Parvathi, in the southern Indian city of Chennai had become victim to physical abuse from her unemployed, alcoholic husband in the early years of her marriage. But this violence reduced recently, because of the salary she brought home every month.

Over the lockdown, her employer inquired her to stay at her place because of the pandemic in the country. Thereby, she was given her wage and one day her husband in awful mood started beating her. She shouted for help and ran on the lanes of her street for help but apart from helping her they asked her to stay indoors.

 Half an hour later, she ran out again, this time working up the courage to walk to the police barricade, and asked to be taken to the police station. “Go home and sort it out,” the officer on duty told her from behind a mask. “The police and courts are shut for 21 days.”

Another incident, of a 35-year-old woman, married to an alcoholic businessman faced domestic abuse. Her husband had a habit of beating her every few days. But with the extension of lockdown, her prison sentence also got extended. One day he got extremely drunk and they engaged in an argument. Frustrated him, tied her up, and started beating her. When she complained about the incident to her in-laws, they asked her to keep quiet and said, “Ye toh Mard hai, tum khud ko strong banao.

Is this what manliness is all about? Is this the same answer you would have given if this incident has ever happened to your daughter?

Violence is not an option; it is a choice people make. Everyone is facing traumas, depressions, anxiety, financial & medical issues along with the deadly virus during lockdown but your violence is never a solution to your frustration & issues. Now that you’re stuck in your home that doesn’t mean you have got a license to show your manliness by beating a woman or using force on her. Only the abuser is responsible for this choice, & nothing a child or an adult victim does cause abuse.

It takes a lot of courage to report crimes against your husband, family, or relatives. That’s why domestic violence is way too ahead in the list of most under-reported crimes.

This is not just one or two incidents. Every state, every city, every town, every village, every street has at least one Parvathi, struggling for her survival, wishing to die from COVID than from the abuse.

Nobody is born to face all this abuse or harassment. Everyone has a right to life & liberty. Even the Constitution of India grants the fundamental right to protection of life & personal liberty under Article 21. The legislators have also enacted the Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In this time of crisis, district rescue teams have been formed to address the issue of violence against women, 24 x 7 helplines have been implemented. But due to the lockdown, fear of infection, & mobility issues, very few have resorted to the immediate remedy through the courts or shelter homes. 

Several petitions are being marched in the courts of justice in this esteem. Thereby for fetching safeguard measures for domestic-violence victims and to protect children from abuses during the lockdown preventing the spread of coronavirus a plea was brought into by the NGO, All India Council of Human Rights, Liberties and Social Justice (AICHLS) before the court.

The NGO further contended that the incidents of domestic violence & child abuse have not only gripped India but also countries such as Australia, UK, & the USA. The reports suggest that there has a horrifying surge in domestic violence cases since lockdowns.

Domestic Violence is a sin, crime & a serious social problem. Many awareness programmes, counselors are trying to teach people and ignite a sense of humanity in them. The legislators, the judiciary, the state at every level are trying to combat the situation. But the government alone cannot do anything. The cure lies within you.

Maybe COVID is a pandemic you can’t cure right now but domestic violence is one that you can. All it needs is some sense of responsibility, awareness & control!


By- Abhishek Rohatgi

“Profit is the payment you get when you take advantage of change”

-Joseph Schumpeter

The spread of SARS-CoV-2, or what is now popularly known as the COVID-19 pandemic has gripped the whole world, unlike any other major event since the end of World War II. There is hardly any country that has been left untouched or which has been able to control the spread of the virus. As a consequence result, many hundred thousand [1] of people have already lost their lives, and many million may potentially lose their lives if no vaccine for COVID-19 is discovered in the near future. 

The outbreak of this pandemic has brought the role of Pharma companies in limelight. When the health care systems around the world have crumbled before the virus, the focus is now on the Pharma companies to come up with an effective solution- and that too fast. COVID 19 brings opportunity and threat to the Pharma industry at the same time. Although this pandemic has spelled a death knell for various industries, the Pharma industry largely remains untouched due to the role it has to play in this fight against the pandemic.

Pharma industry will be playing a crucial role throughout the course of the pandemic, be it Diagnostics, Treatment, or Vaccine Development. The Pharma industry has contributed to this fight against Corona by developing efficient and affordable diagnostic techniques, like the rapid testing kits which have been put to use around the world to diagnose people who have been infected in the shortest time possible. The Pharma companies have also come up with potent treatment plans for treating the infected with the help of various combinations of pre-existing antiviral drugs.

But in midst of all this light and glamour, there have been accusations against the industry – including the Manufacturers, Suppliers, and Distributors, that they have been trying to spin off profits from the misery of people by shooting up the prices of their offerings. 

Many international pharmaceutical companies, including Indian Pharma companies, are working to develop a vaccine for this deadly virus. According to WHO, as of 31st July 2020, there are total of 26 Vaccine candidates around the world[2].  These Pharma companies have been directing efforts to find a vaccine since the first alarms went off after the world came to know of an ‘unknown’ infection explosion in Wuhan, China.[3]

The intention of this Blog is to bring before its readers, the moral dilemma that the Pharma industry is facing right now – To earn profits or not to earn profits during the Pandemic!

The long term (or traditional) understanding of a business entity is that it has been set up to earn profits for its owners and shareholders. The Pharma Industry, like any other company, operates on the same principle. However, this long-standing concept has come under fire due to the present-day pandemic. It must be stated that this is not the first time that the Pharma industry has to grapple with this concept; there have been previous instances where the Pharma industry has been lambasted for charging exorbitant prices for their drugs.

In a recent interview, Pfizer CEO – Albert Bourla, said that forgoing profits on the Novel Corona Virus Vaccine would be ‘RADICAL’[4] (). However, opposite views have also been voiced by Pharma Giants like Johnson & Johnson[5], and AstraZeneca[6]. They have pledged not to earn profits at least during the period of the Pandemic. This brings us to the moral predicament that the Pharma Industry is facing, whether to earn profits or not.

Before jumping into the moral dilemma that this question poses to the readers, some important facts must be introduced so as to enable the readers to form an informed opinion.

The Pharma Industry, unlike other industries, is a Research and Development oriented industry[7]. Development of any vaccine entails an R&D phase, a pre-clinical trial, a clinical trial stage, and finally, the regulatory stage[8], setting back the companies by a few million US Dollars. This makes the whole process quite expensive. This has to be coupled with the fact that a large proportion of drugs fail during different stages of their trial[9]. This adds to the cost and increases the financial burden that the company faces. The sole motivation for the Pharma companies to incur such a high cost and high-risk proposition is the lure of high profits that the company might earn if it is able to successfully discover the vaccine. The present COVID-19 pandemic provides an excellent opportunity for the Pharma companies to earn profits, largely due to the following two reasons –

  1. No Pre-existing vaccine for the Corona Virus
  2. High Demand due to high rate of infections.

This has pushed all the major Pharma companies around the world into the race for finding the vaccines first and in turn spin off high profits.

Having said this, several people have voiced their concern that the endeavor of the Pharma companies to earn a profit during the pandemic is opposed to the interest of the public at large. This contention is also based on the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility, which has largely been accepted by corporates giants around the world. This concept states that the corporate entity must not limit itself to protecting the interest of its owners and shareholders, their responsibility also extends to their customers, and other members of the society, under a ‘Social Contract‘. In other words, profit maximization is not the sole purpose of a corporate entity, its purpose also includes – ‘SOCIAL WELFARE’. 

If the Pharma companies price their vaccines exorbitantly, a large majority of the world population would be deprived of their basic Human Rights. This deprivation would not be limited to just Under Developed and Developing Countries, but will also extend to the poor in the Developed countries. The inability of customers to access expensive vaccines and other therapeutic drugs has been a long-standing bone of contention between Pharma industry and Consumer Rights Groups.[10](A great illustration would be pricing regard to HIV/AIDS drugs).

This inability to access has now been even more intensified in light of the global economic slowdown induced by the COVID-19 pandemic. Millions of people have lost their livelihood and are even unable to afford necessities of daily life to sustain themselves. It cannot be expected that these people would be able to afford to pay for an expensive vaccine. Various Demographic, Social, Economic trends in underdeveloped and developing countries contribute to this inability to afford. These people, even if they intend to, under no circumstances can afford expensive vaccines even if their life is on the line.

Having laid down the facts before you, the author understands that a balance will have to be achieved between the profit-earning motive of Pharma industry and the Social responsibility it owes to the community. Further, the author believes that external intervention in the form of government regulation is necessitated to balance the equities between the stakeholders on one hand, and the society on the other. The decision of the Pharma industry can either save millions of lives or be a potential death sentence for millions of poor around the world. The decision taken by the Pharma industry today will be remembered the posterity tomorrow.

[1]“Coronavirus Death Toll.” Worldometer, 3 Aug. 2020,

[2]“Draft Landscape of COVID-19 Candidate Vaccines.” World Health Organization, World Health Organization, 31 July 2020,

[3]Dellanna, Alessio. “How Close Are We to Finding a Coronavirus Vaccine?” Euronews, 29 July 2020,

[4]Nathan-Kazis, Josh. “Pfizer CEO Says Companies Should Make Profit On Covid-19 Vaccines.” Barron’s, Barrons, 28 July 2020,

[5]Marris, Sharon. “Coronavirus: Johnson & Johnson Vows to Make ‘Not-for-Profit’ Vaccine.” Sky News, Sky, 31 Mar. 2020,

[6]Kirka, Danica. “AstraZeneca: Won’t Profit from COVID-19 Vaccine in Pandemic.” ABC News, ABC News Network, 30 July 2020,

[7]Singh, Amandeep. “Pharmaceutical R&D Global Spending Trends in 2019 – PreScouter – Custom Intelligence from a Global Network of Experts.” PreScouter, 21 Jan. 2020,

[8]“Covid Vaccine Latest Update: What Are the Different Stages of Vaccine Development: India News – Times of India.” The Times of India, TOI, 17 July 2020,

[9]Plaford, Chris. “Why Do Most Clinical Trials Fail?” Why Do Most Clinical Trials Fail, 8 July 2015,

[10]Lo, Chris. “The People vs Big Pharma: Tackling the Industry’s Trust Issues.” Pharmaceutical Technology, 27 Jan. 2020,


By- Aaditya Sinha

Fortunately or unfortunately, I am pursuing my undergraduate degree which is known as B. Tech LL.B. (Bachelor of Technology & Bachelor of Legislative Law). This course has a duration of six years, and honestly, I never wanted to pursue this course, but then as there is a saying that when one is bound to do something in life, the whole universe conspires to make that happen and one has no control over it.

I am not telling my story here, and I am very much sure that at least right now no one is interested in reading it as well, but my point was to tell the readers that since I am doing a combined course of B. Tech and LL.B. which are probably very different from each other. I have tried to find one main difference between the two and that is being “Binary” and being “subjective” respectively.

We human beings have created computers to provide a binary answer, in other words, to either get “Yes” or “No” but in law, nothing can be binary of course. There has to be judgment but that judgment can also be questioned because the law follows a precedent or one can say a hierarchy in legal systems. Law also has a provision of judicial review, so in other words, we can have many interpretations in one case by using different legal procedures.

I am actually trying to come to the point directly but I had to explain the readers about being “binary” and being “subjective”, because in this blog we are going to discuss that whether amid this pandemic, is it a good decision to have “Ram Mandir Bhumi-Pujan in Ayodha”.

I discussed the above points because I personally feel that today we all just want to have an instant answer, and I respect that we can have a poll on this issue too, where a binary answer will work, but in this blog, I will try my best to actually discuss the conflicts which I feel whenever I discuss this issue with myself.


It is probably both possible and impossible that you don’t know anything about this case because I although am sure that almost everybody would have an idea of the temple-mosque debatebut I suspect how many people knew about the M. Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors case.

Don’t think too much, these both are the same; the only difference is that you must have heard about the former in the news channels and if you would have shown interest then you might have studied about the latter in a law book. Here, we all know that last year on 9th November the Supreme Court gave a judgment that the temple of Lord Rama will be constructed in the place where there was mosque (known as Babri- Masjid) and that the government will provide 5-acre land to the Waqf board for constructing the mosque.

This issue has always been a part of discussions, debate, faith, and many more things in our country. There were generally three opinions towards this case, one section of people wanted “Lord Rama Temple”; one section of people wanted the “mosque” which was there but was demolished by a mob and other probably more intelligent and diplomatic opinions that we should instead make a hospital or school there.

While you may have any opinion, but the thing is that after the judgment everyone has to agree to that decision, as I said there is a fine line in being “binary” and being “subjective”. Since independence, we had many subjective opinions but on 9th November, 2019 the nation got a binary judgment.

Current issue: Whether bhumi-pujan should be held in amidst of COVID-19

The current issue however is that after waiting for so many years the temple is finally being built and since faith is such a big thing for human beings, therefore, we all want the outcome very soon. A large section of our country or say the “Hindus” waited to see the temple in Ayodhya where Lord Rama was born.

However, since we all know today the whole world is suffering from a pandemic called COVID-19 and the idea of being normal has been completely changed. Our country was in lockdown for almost 2 months and even after lockdown, every State now has different rules on it. Some states are still in lockdown, some districts are in lockdown, etc.

However, a decision came and it said that there would be “Bhumi-Pujan” of Ram mandir (the first step in order to build any building or temple). Now, the point to be considered is that we are in a state of pandemic which surely doesn’t have a specific end date and our Government tried everything from lockdown to unlock but till today the graph is only increasing if we consider our nation as a whole.

We all know that India is a huge country both by population and by area and also it is culturally diverse; we have different languages, different religions, different cultures of the same religion, different castes, etc. I belong to one of those people who believe that there is nothing wrong in order to have different religion or caste, it is actually better because you can have interaction with different kinds of people. However, here the issue lies in the fact that is this decision correct today?

The legality of the whole issue

The law in this case is very plain and simple, it is upon the District Magistrates or any other equivalent magistrate who decides on the issue whether it is okay to put the lockdown or not. Under section 144 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the magistrates can restrict the number of people in a gathering. However, what’s interesting is that in this Ram mandir bhumi-pujan also, the police have said that gathering of more than five people will not be allowed.

According to some news portals, nearly 200 people are invited and the first person to be invited is Iqbal Ansari, the son of first litigant Hashim Ansari, who is now the litigant. There was also a report that 16 police officers and one junior priest were found COVID-19 positive, however, the district magistrate  “Anuj Kumar Jha” has said that the coronavirus situation is under control in Ayodhya and further security measures are being taken to prevent spread in view of the bhumi-pujan”


The truth is that at least according to me this debate should be discussed in a similar way as opening cinemas or schools or colleges. Now please don’t get me wrong, I understand that faith is a thing which is above all and it is also a thing which one section of people completely ignores, but the thing is that like if we want to open the theatres, we have to think about the part-time workers and about the audience, that how can we ensure that people will feel safe while coming to the theatre and then we can say that watching movies is not an important thing.

We have to understand this that maybe the world is changing post-COVID-19 pandemic, so, maybe we have to make our “new normal” as we know films are coming directly on the online platforms, education is being given on online platform, but one day may be probably we will have to open the theatres and schools but then I don’t think there would be a debate regarding that or at least there would be no conflicting opinion like this, so according to me whether to conduct the bhumi-pujan or not depends on the situation whether the magistrates are able take the things under control or not.

So, we should take this issue into account as a non-political issue and as an issue in which the administration can handle the situation or not. It should be taken into account if there is no problem in conducting the bhumi-pujan with minimum people and maximum restriction. If the administration cannot put such required restrictions then it is better to postpone it.

However this is also the issue of faith now again. There are those people who are atheists and agnostics can say that what’s the big deal, go to the near temple or do an online bhumi-pujan, but the truth is that if someone has faith that the only way to be “okay” is to go to the temple or church or mosque or gurudwara then we cannot have any arguments on that, because faith I believe is beyond argument.

Social Media Abuse: A Bane for Youth

By- Anjanee Goel

An offense may be said to be any behavior gotten along by act or omission is forbidden by law and significant infringement of which is visited by the penal penalty.

The increasing attain of computers and the internet has made it much easier for the populace to keep in contact from corner to corner long distances, and work together for purposes connected to business, teaching, and civilization among others. On the other hand, the resources that facilitate the liberated flow of information transversely along borders also provide rise to a troublingly high occurrence of reckless deeds. Any know-how is competent of helpful uses as well as exploitation. It is the work of the legal organization and authoritarian agencies to keep swiftness with the same and make certain that newer technologies do not turn out to be an apparatus of exploitation and harassment.

From each point of view, social media is abhorrence to privacy. People shared ideas, hilarity, emotions, priorities, prejudices, preferences, and frequently mistaken attempts at insightfulness. Newer sites broadened and deepened the distribution – Twitter users share travel times and coffee temperatures, Tumblers contribute to memes in abundance, and Instagramites share the prosperity of doctored photographs.

Criminals seek social media continually, looking for vacations, indicating trouble-free targets. Operators of a range of social media outlets are well conscious that their profits might increase as we increase our willingness to share individual data about ourselves, and a great deal of the business model development for social media sites is designed to pressurize, coax, trick, mock, or tease us into enlightening more information about our daily lives and our thoughts and opinions.

The digital intermediary provides the appropriate guard of secrecy and false identities. Sinful persons develop into additional emboldened in their disgusting behavior if they believe that they will not face any penalty.

Morphing is the movement to correct a unique image to exploit it. Preparators download women’s pictures from social media, WhatsApp, or some additional resources and upload morphed photos on further websites like social media sites, porn sites, or registering themselves namelessly.

With loads of young people socializing on the Internet, a major law-enforcement apprehension has been the right of entry and secrecy the Internet gives to persons who may want to sexually exploit adolescence.

Territorial restriction on the internet becomes unimportant in the virtual means as the web pages on the web can get in touch with almost every region in the country and possibly almost every nation on the earth.

Leaked screenshots of juvenile Delhi kids from an Instagram chat-room named  ‘Bois Locker Room’ have stimulated annoyance and sparked debate about the underbelly of rape society in India, women’s security, objectification, and permission. Many citizens took to the internet to say their views.

In the midst of all this, posts concerning a girl’s chat room of a fairly similar character, being dubbed as the ‘Girl’s Locker Room” have appeared. Associates of this girls-only group are charged to sexualize and objectify boys and body-shame together boys and girls. Leaked screenshots of the group have been availably going viral on social media platforms. These posts have ignited a whole novel discussion, with netizens quarreling that it’s not just boys and men, constantly girls and women are dynamic partakers in perpetuating body-shaming and objectification through sexually overt remarks. 

These children are just demanding too hard to be a component of the cult, to be accepted, to be called cool but in actuality, they require mental concern, attention from their parents, and enhanced surrounding. Incidents like the Boys Locker room or Girls Locker Room are typical instances of how our teens have to not be. Online/ cyberbullying, shaming, distressing is a serious offense.

The majority of the schools and colleges are blocked across the nation because of the COVID- 19 scare and parents suppose that their wards are actively studying and preparing in advance for their exams. The ruthless reality, nevertheless, is that their wards on social media platforms are involved in the redistribution of vulgar comments and disobedient with the opposite gender.

The revelations concerning the ‘Bois Locker Room’ group chitchat among teenage boys in Delhi have discarded light on the poisonous masculine behavior amongst boys even of this age, which have a say to the rape culture that plagues our culture. The Delhi Police have apparently registered a case beneath sections of the Information Technology Act 2000, and the Indian Penal Code. Additionally, the sharing of photos of underage girls could also be an infringement of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012.

It is dreadful how boys as immature as 15 years of age elevate rape, talk about techniques of raping and gang-raping women and morphing them in the most atrocious manner. Above all, in its place of being apologetic or fearful, they are explicitly bullying the girls who are calling them out in public with horrible consequences. If risks like being raped, gang-raped, tortured, and being compressed are so laid-back and common that they do not provoke fear among the wrongdoers, and then these offenders certainly do not anticipate being investigated, charged, or being penalized.

After the occurrence of indecent chat groups on Instagram, a 17-year-old boy committed suicide in Gurugram’s expensive building after a girl made severe allegations in opposition to him on Instagram without any proof.

The use of social media has led to effects such as anxiety and depression, poor sleep, body image, and cyberbullying. Our deficiency of knowledge regarding the dimensions and dynamics of the harms this new technology has created for youthful people is, certainly, a blockade to devising effectual solutions. Social media has turned into an unhealthy obsession for society.

However, even in the nonattendance of knowledge, there has been no shortage of suggestions about things to do. Parents have been urged to oversee their children and converse with them about Internet dangers. Youth have been urged to keep away from certain risky circumstances. Organizations have been established to watch and investigate doubtful episodes.

There is a necessity for a steady assessment of cyber laws and modus operandi because women face difficulties whilst seeking redressal because of a lack of consciousness. The police and the Government, both have their roles to play, but these cyber crimes will downcast only when lawful steps are accompanied by woman responsiveness to bring a shift in the state of mind of the society at large.