When the matter was taken up on Wednesday (28 October) before the Division bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M, the Additional Advocate General submitted that the instructions have been received on the matter and a detailed affidavit will be filed within two weeks.

The matter is now posted on 11 November for further consideration.

The writ petition raises concerns over the absence of a coordinated institutional mechanism to address persistent online harassment before it results in irreversible harm.

The petitioner contends that while existing laws provide for the investigation and prosecution of various cyber offences, there remains a gap between general cybercrime-prevention initiatives and conventional criminal investigations that commence after an offence has occurred.

The petition refers to several reported incidents from Kerala and other parts of India to demonstrate the challenges posed by sustained online harassment, public humiliation, the circulation of private communications and manipulated images, and the dissemination of viral content across multiple platforms.

The petition additionally refers to proceedings in which digital communications allegedly indicating sustained harassment and coercive conduct formed part of the investigative material. These instances are relied upon to emphasise the importance of preserving and forensically examining electronic evidence at the earliest stage.

According to the petition, the investigation of serious cyberbullying cases may require examination of social-media posts, messaging-app conversations, deleted accounts, metadata, subscriber information, IP records, device information and other electronic records.

The petitioner argues that evidence may be deleted, accounts deactivated and communications rendered inaccessible as time passes. Where harassment takes place through multiple platforms or involves persons operating from different jurisdictions, separate complaints and fragmented investigations may fail to reveal the full extent of an alleged coordinated campaign.

The petition invokes Article 21 of the Constitution, and contends that the State's responsibility to protect life should not be confined to investigating criminal liability after a death or other irreversible harm has occurred. Where credible warning signs of escalating harassment are available, the petitioner argues, timely preventive intervention within the limits of existing law assumes particular importance.

At the same time, the petitioner expressly states that the proposed mechanism is not intended to create a new offence of cyberbullying, impose general surveillance on social-media users or restrict legitimate criticism, journalism, political expression, satire or other constitutionally protected speech.

The petitioner maintains that any proposed mechanism must function within the existing statutory framework and remain subject to constitutional safeguards governing freedom of speech and expression.

The central contention of the PIL is that serious technology-facilitated harassment should not be treated merely as an isolated social-media grievance. The petitioner submits that sustained threats, cyberstalking, impersonation, non-consensual dissemination of private material and coordinated online humiliation may escalate rapidly, requiring a mechanism capable of assessing high-risk complaints and coordinating timely action by competent authorities.

The petition does not contend that every suicide following online harassment establishes abetment of suicide or that social media is the sole cause of such deaths. Instead, it seeks a coordinated institutional response to credible allegations of serious digital abuse, with the aim of strengthening prevention, intervention, evidence preservation and investigation under existing law.

The principal relief sought is a direction to the respondents to constitute a specialised Special Investigation Team (SIT), or an equivalent coordinated State-level investigative mechanism, under the supervision of a suitably senior officer. The proposed mechanism is intended to handle serious and recurring instances of cyberbullying, online harassment and technology-facilitated abuse, particularly where such conduct is alleged to have contributed to suicide, attempted suicide or serious self-harm.

The petition also seeks the establishment of a Preventative Monitoring Wing within the proposed mechanism to identify patterns of coordinated online harassment, monitor social-media trends and detect high-risk digital environments, subject to constitutional safeguards and the limitations imposed by Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

The petitioner has further sought directions for standardised protocols for the prompt preservation and forensic examination of digital evidence, effective implementation of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, and improved coordination with nodal contact persons of social-media intermediaries to facilitate the identification of offenders.

Among the other reliefs sought are a direction to consider and dispose of a representation submitted by the petitioner, the submission of a compliance report detailing steps taken to strengthen cyber-forensic and digital-evidence management infrastructure, and appropriate further orders. As interim relief, the petitioner has sought the establishment of the proposed preventive wing pending disposal of the PIL.

Counsel for Petitioner: Gautham Krishna E.J, Cuckoo Albert