Being stalked or harassed online? The laws that protect you

What the law says

The stalking offence, and who it protects

The main offence is stalking, under Section 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which carries forward the former Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code. It has two limbs. A man commits stalking if he repeatedly follows or tries to contact a woman to force interaction despite her clear disinterest, or if he monitors her use of the internet, email, or any other electronic communication. It is punishable with up to three years' imprisonment on a first conviction, and up to five years on a repeat.

Note the wording carefully, because the gender scope matters and the memos state it plainly: the stalking offence is framed as a man stalking a woman. That does not leave a man who is being harassed online without protection. The Information Technology Act provisions below are gender-neutral, they protect any person, and general offences such as criminal intimidation apply regardless of the gender of either side. So the stalking section is specific, but it is not the only tool.

Harassment through content, and the honest threshold

Harassing content has its own offences under the Information Technology Act. Publishing or transmitting obscene material electronically is an offence under Section 67, and sexually explicit material under Section 67A, which carries heavier punishment. Both are gender-neutral, protecting any person.

There is an honest limit worth knowing, so your complaint is aimed correctly rather than being quashed later. These provisions are about genuinely lascivious or sexually explicit material, not mere rudeness or offensive language. The Supreme Court in Apoorva Arora v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2024) held that vulgarity and swear words alone do not amount to obscenity, judged by the standard of an ordinary, reasonable person, and the Madras High Court in Balaji Kumar v. K.M. Nalini Shree (2019) quashed charges over a non-lascivious cartoon. So the content offences fit sexual or obscene material aimed at you. A threat, on the other hand, is criminal intimidation whatever its content, and repeated unwanted monitoring or contact is stalking, so between them the harassing conduct is usually covered.

Preserving evidence and reporting

In a cyber case, the evidence is the case, and it can vanish the moment an account is deleted or a post is taken down. So preservation comes first. Take dated screenshots of every message, comment, profile, and post, and save the URLs, usernames, phone numbers, and any call records or chat exports. Do this before you block anyone, because once you block, you may lose easy access to their profile and messages.

Then report. You can complain at your nearest cyber cell and on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal. The exact steps for portal reporting, and what to do if the harassment has tipped into blackmail over private images, are covered in our companion guide on online blackmail and sextortion.

Bail and injunctions: what the courts have held

Two practical points about how these cases run.

First, on the accused's side: an accused may seek anticipatory bail, but the courts treat it as an exceptional, discretionary power, not a matter of course. And it is not a shield to evade the process, the Supreme Court in Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar (2024) held that a pending anticipatory-bail application does not stop a court from proceeding against an accused who is absconding. Because an online harasser is often in a different state, the courts have also worked out the interstate position, allowing only a limited transit anticipatory bail in the accused's home state, as the Supreme Court set out in Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka (2023); it does not let them avoid the investigating state's courts.

Second, on your side: alongside the criminal complaint, a civil injunction is a standard tool to restrain a harasser and to stop or remove harassing content. A temporary injunction under Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be sought to halt the conduct while the matter is decided.

What you can do

1. Preserve the evidence first. Take dated screenshots of the messages, comments, profiles, and posts, and save the URLs, usernames, numbers, and any call records or chat exports. Do not delete anything.
2. Do not engage, then block and lock down. After you have saved the evidence, stop responding, block the person and the accounts, and tighten your privacy settings, including who can see your posts, photos, and contacts.
3. Report to the cyber cell and the cybercrime portal. File at your nearest cyber cell and on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal. If it has become blackmail over private images, see the companion guide linked above.
4. Report the content or account to the platform. Use the platform's own reporting tools to get harassing content or accounts acted on, and save the URLs and screenshots first so the evidence survives even after the content is removed.
5. Consider a civil injunction alongside the complaint. A temporary injunction under Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a standard way to restrain the harasser and get harassing content stopped or removed while the case runs.
6. Know the gender scope, and your options. The stalking offence covers a man stalking a woman, but the IT Act content provisions are gender-neutral, so a man being harassed online has remedies too, and threats are criminal intimidation regardless of gender.
7. Do not be put off by distance or bail. A harasser being in another state does not defeat your complaint, the law handles interstate cases, and an accused cannot use an anticipatory-bail application to escape investigation.

Cases that matter

Apoorva Arora v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (Supreme Court, 2024). Vulgarity, profanity, and swear words alone do not amount to obscenity under Section 67 or sexually explicit conduct under Section 67A of the IT Act. The content has to be genuinely lascivious or appeal to prurient interests, judged by the standard of an ordinary, reasonable person, so a complaint should target material that actually crosses that line.

Balaji Kumar v. K.M. Nalini Shree (Madras High Court, 2019). A non-lascivious social media cartoon did not attract Section 67 of the IT Act or the stalking offence, and the charges were quashed. It marks the boundary: the content offences are for sexual or obscene material, not for every post someone finds offensive.

Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka (Supreme Court, 2023). Because online harassment often crosses state lines, the Court addressed the interstate position: an accused cannot get full anticipatory bail in a state other than where the case is registered, but only a limited transit bail in their home state, and even that only in exceptional circumstances. It does not let a harasser sidestep the courts of the state investigating the complaint.

Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar (Supreme Court, 2024). A pending anticipatory-bail application, without an interim protection order, does not stop a court from proceeding against an accused who is absconding, including issuing proclamation steps. An accused cannot hide behind a bail petition to evade summons and warrants.