7. Digital Torts | Civil Wrongs Committed Through the Internet and Technology

This is the 7th post in Unit III — the earlier posts covered torts against the person in the physical world; this post shows how the same principles apply when the wrong is committed online.

The Problem This Topic Solves

A rumour that once spread through a village now spreads across the world in minutes through social media. A person's photograph, data or identity can be copied, changed and sold without their knowledge. Courts and legislators did not invent a new law of torts for this. They applied the existing torts to online facts and added some statutory remedies. A student needs to know which old tort fits which new problem.

What Digital Torts Are

A digital tort (a civil wrong committed using computers, the internet, social media or other digital technology) is not a separate category in Indian law. There is no single statute for it. The ordinary elements of tort still apply: a legal duty or right, a wrongful act or omission, and legal damage. The Information Technology Act, 2000 adds some specific civil remedies and rules for online intermediaries.

Main Forms of Digital Torts

1. Online defamation. A false statement posted on social media, a website or a messaging group that harms a person's reputation is defamation. Because posts are written and permanent, they are treated like libel. Publication to even one other person is enough, and sharing or forwarding repeats the publication. The same act is also a crime under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. In Swami Ramdev v. Facebook Inc. (Delhi High Court, 2019), the court ordered intermediaries to remove defamatory content worldwide when it had been uploaded from India.

2. Invasion of privacy and misuse of personal data. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21. In R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994), the Court held that publishing a person's private matters without consent can give a claim for damages. Leaking or misusing personal data online falls in this area.

3. Cyber stalking, harassment and trolling. Persistent online harassment, threats and following a person's online activity can support a civil claim for an injunction and damages. They are also crimes: stalking (Section 78 BNS) and criminal intimidation (Section 351 BNS).

4. Unauthorised access and damage to data (hacking). Section 43 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 gives compensation by way of damages to a person whose computer, system or data is accessed without permission, copied, damaged or disrupted. Claims are decided by an Adjudicating Officer under Section 46 of the Act, up to the limit set under the Act.

5. Misuse of domain names and online identity. In Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions (2004), the Supreme Court held that domain names are protected under the law of passing off (a business pretending to be another by using a confusingly similar name). A fake website or a confusingly similar domain can be stopped.

6. Personality rights and deepfakes. In Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India (Delhi High Court, 2023), the court restrained unauthorised commercial use of an actor's name, image, voice and catchphrases, including use through artificial intelligence and deepfakes. Misuse of a person's identity online is therefore treated as a protected personal interest.

Intermediary Liability

An intermediary (a platform or service, such as a social media site, that hosts or transmits content posted by others) is not automatically liable for what users post. Section 79 of the Information Technology Act gives it conditional immunity (a safe harbour) if it follows due diligence rules and removes unlawful content once it has actual knowledge.

In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act as violating Article 19(1)(a). It also read down Section 79, holding that "actual knowledge" means receipt of a court order or a government notification, so a platform need not act merely on a private complaint.

Remedies and Practical Difficulties

• Injunction and takedown — the fastest remedy; the court orders removal of content or restrains a user or website.
• Damages — compensation for harm to reputation, privacy or property.
• Statutory compensation — Section 43 and Section 46 of the IT Act.
• Criminal complaint — alongside the civil claim, under the BNS and the IT Act.
• Difficulties — anonymous users are hard to identify, content spreads before orders arrive, platforms may be located abroad, and the question of which court has jurisdiction is not always easy.

Digital Torts at a Glance

• Digital torts are ordinary torts committed online; India has no single statute for them.
• Online defamation is treated as libel; the same act is also an offence under Section 356 BNS.
• Privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 (Puttaswamy); misuse of data and private information is actionable.
• Section 43, IT Act gives compensation for unauthorised access and damage; Section 46 provides an Adjudicating Officer.
• Domain names are protected by passing off (Satyam Infoway).
• Intermediaries get conditional immunity under Section 79; actual knowledge means a court order or government notification (Shreya Singhal); Section 66A was struck down.

• Forwarding or resharing a defamatory post can itself amount to fresh publication.
• Personality rights protect commercial and personal identity, including voice and image, against AI misuse.
• Exam trap: do not say a platform is always liable for user posts; safe harbour applies if the conditions of Section 79 are met.

A Practical Example

A rival posts a false claim on social media that a doctor falsified patient reports, and the post is shared thousands of times. The doctor can sue for defamation (libel) and ask the court for a takedown injunction against the user and the platform, and for damages. The platform is bound to act once it receives the court order. The doctor can also file a criminal complaint under Section 356 BNS.

Quick Revision Points

• Digital tort: existing tort committed through digital means; no separate statute.
• Forms: online defamation, privacy and data misuse, cyber stalking and harassment, hacking, domain-name passing off, personality rights and deepfakes.
• Key authorities: Section 356 BNS; Swami Ramdev v. Facebook (2019); Puttaswamy (2017); R. Rajagopal (1994); Section 43 and Section 46, IT Act; Satyam Infoway (2004); Anil Kapoor (2023).
• Intermediaries: Section 79 safe harbour; Shreya Singhal (2015) — actual knowledge means court order or government notification; Section 66A struck down.