Cyber Stalking, Doxxing & Online Harassment

Harassment has moved from the street to the notification tray. It arrives as a burner account that reappears the moment you block it, as your phone number and address posted into a group of strangers, as an AI chatbot trained on your photographs, as a hundred small messages that are individually deniable and collectively terrifying. Women are routinely told this is not serious enough for the police. It is. Following a woman online, monitoring her digital footprint against her wishes, is stalking under Section 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in the same way following her home is.

We build a chronology, because a pattern is what converts a pile of unpleasant messages into a prosecutable offence. Every account, every timestamp, every reappearance after a block goes into a single dated log. Impersonation accounts attract Section 66C and 66D of the IT Act, which carry their own teeth. Where the harasser is anonymous we seek preservation and disclosure from the platform through the investigating officer before the data ages out — most platforms retain subscriber logs for a limited window, and a complaint filed six months late frequently cannot be traced at all. Where the woman is a lawyer, journalist, doctor or public servant, we raise the aggravating context, because targeted campaigns are treated differently from a single abusive message.

Realistically: identification of the account holder where the complaint is filed early, removal of the impersonating profiles, and a restraining direction where the harasser is known to the woman. Equally important is what a properly documented cyber complaint does inside a divorce, custody or workplace proceeding — it becomes independent corroboration that the harassment happened.