Beyond the Screen: Understanding Digital Vigilantism in India

The Author, Anika Sehgal, is a 1st Year BA.LLB student at National Law University, Delhi. She is currently interning with LatestLaws.com and the Indian Dispute Resolution Centre.

Vigilantism is an attempt to do ‘justice’ by responding to a perceived crime without having the authority to do so. It is a practice wherein ordinary people take an unofficial action to prevent a crime or punish the ‘wrongdoer’.[1] It is an enigmatic concept consisting of multiple factors, usually involving the use or threat of use of force.[2] Conventional forms of vigilantism involve the use or threat of the use of physical force. However, with the coming of the ‘digital age’, a novel form of doing ‘justice’ is taking shape, that is transcending the physical barriers and establishing a virtual presence — digital vigilantism. This has raised new concerns by acting as a threat not only to the rule of law but also to social peace and harmony. This article aims at analyzing the reasons why vigilantism, in general, is more prevalent in India; throwing light on the socio-cultural factors in the country that have led to the same. The article further aims to understand the dynamics of digital vigilantism, its peculiarities, and the challenges that henceforth arise in dealing with the same. Further, an attempt has also been made to look at the existing legal framework and try to analyze its adequacy.

1. Introduction to Digital Vigilantism

Digital Vigilantism, in simple words, refers to the act of carrying on vigilante activities through the internet. It is a process in which people, on being collectively offended by some other person’s activity, coordinate retaliation on mobile devices and social platforms. The ‘offending acts’ may range from mild breaches of socially accepted norms to something as serious as a criminal act. The vigilantism includes, but is not limited to, online harassment, sending various threats, and revealing personal information. The visibility produced through digital vigilantism is unwanted, intense, and enduring. It also leads to a breach of privacy and other fundamental rights.[3] Empowered by technology, social media platforms, and virtual communities, digital vigilantes can amplify their impact beyond geographic boundaries. As we delve into the multifaceted dimensions of this phenomenon, a nuanced understanding of the motivations, consequences, and broader implications of digital vigilantism becomes imperative in comprehending its intricate role within the fabric of contemporary society.

2. Why is Vigilantism so Prevalent in India? An Examination of the Socio-Cultural Factors

To understand the threat of vigilantism in India, it is imperative to look at the data regarding the same. However, the National Crime Records Bureau does not record data specifically on vigilante activities, such as mob lynching or cow vigilantism. Henceforth, we have to rely on other sources of data to understand the extent of the problem. Various organizations have collected data on cow vigilantism, hate crimes, and honor killings, all of which are forms of vigilante activities. A look at this data helps us understand the extent of the problem, necessitating the need to introduce mechanisms to deal with the same.[4]  Before attempting to understand a new variant of vigilantism, i.e. digital vigilantism, or suggesting potential solutions to deal with this problem, it is important to understand the underlying cause and factors fuelling this practice in the first place.

To explain the support for vigilantism, two hypotheses have been put forward.[5] The first one is known as the ‘confidence hypothesis’. According to the same, vigilantism arises due to a lack of confidence in the legal system of the country. Simply stated, people resort to vigilantism when they feel that the present legal system is not sufficient to deal with it and they are dissatisfied with the justice delivery system of the country.[6] Vigilantism, hence, is the direct result of the actual or perceived ineffectiveness of the legal system among the people of a country. In India, people have a very low level of trust in the legal system. The general stance that people in the country have towards the state of the legal system in India is negative. This can be seen in the way encounter killings are glorified and supported by people, who feel that ‘true justice’ has been served whereas when due process is followed, most people express dissatisfaction over the time taken to reach the decision, resorting to the often misunderstood and overused phrase ‘justice delayed is justice denied’.[7] This is one of the reasons why people feel it is right to take ‘justice’ into their hands and hence vigilantes often enjoy public support in India. A paradox henceforth arises- The presence of Vigilantism is seen as one of the justifications for the existence of a legal system; the presence of an ‘ineffective’ legal system bolsters vigilantism.[8] Moreover, while on the one hand, the perceived ineffectiveness of the legal system motivates people to undertake vigilante activities, at the same time, it also leads to the belief that they won’t face any repercussions for their actions, which bolsters their confidence. Hence, despite the awareness of the illegal nature of their activities, due to this perceived ineffectiveness of the legal system, it fails to deter them from committing these acts.

Another hypothesis put forward is the ‘situation hypothesis’, which believes that the support for vigilantism depends on the situation itself.[9] Accordingly, it depends on factors like the nature of the ‘offence’, its seriousness, etc. In the Indian context, we can see this materializing by looking at the specific ‘crimes’, in response to which, vigilantism is common. For example, cow vigilantism is growing in India,[10] since the cow is seen as a religious symbol and hence according to the social context and situations prevailing in India, vigilante activities are prominent in this arena and also enjoy public support.

3. Understanding the Dynamics of Digital Vigilantism

Digital Vigilantism, in simple terms, refers to carrying on vigilante activities through digital means such as the internet. As stated earlier, it is a process in which people, on being collectively offended by some other person’s activity, coordinate retaliation on mobile devices and social platforms. This ‘retaliation’ may include ‘naming and shaming’, sending online threats, revealing personal information, running ‘hate campaigns’, etc. The rise of social media platforms has provided a fertile ground for these activities, enabling swift dissemination of information and mobilization of like-minded individuals. There can be some overlap between digital vigilantism and cyberbullying because they both use public shaming. However, the two are different in the sense that even though cyberbullying can also involve publishing private information for humiliation, it is driven more by the intention to harass the individual whereas digital vigilantism is seen by the vigilantes as an act pushing for social change with the aim to pursue social justice.[11] Some of the common activities of digital vigilantism include- ‘Doxxing’ which is an act of online shaming done by publishing personal details online that can be used to identify the person; ‘Denial-of-service Attack’, which involves crashing a website and hence denying anyone the access of the same as a form of punishment; ‘Hacktivism’, which involves hacking a website and then add or delete content there to gain more visibility;[12] committing online hate crimes by threatening or harassing people due to their race, religion, sexual identity, etc.

Digital Vigilantism is different from conventional vigilantism. While conventionally, vigilante activities involve actual use or threat of use of physical force, digital vigilantism can involve a wide range of actions as discussed above. Moreover, unlike the localized nature of conventional vigilante activities, digital vigilantism transcends geographical constraints, enabling a swift and far-reaching mobilization of like-minded individuals. Social media platforms serve as platforms where grievances are raised, targets are identified, and collective action is mobilized with unprecedented speed. While this speed can be harnessed for positive causes, such as raising awareness about social issues, it has also increased the strength and impact of these vigilante activities. This makes it difficult to track and control these activities. Moreover, findings suggest that social media platforms benefit from viral bursts of online engagement after controversial, scandalous campaigns, which means that they can tolerate or even cultivate such activity, adding further to the problem.[13]

Another defining feature of digital vigilantism is the cloak of anonymity that often shrouds its actors. Online platforms allow individuals to operate under pseudonyms, concealing their true identities while actively participating in vigilante activities. This anonymity can embolden individuals to engage in aggressive behaviors, propagating hatred, as they perceive a degree of protection from real-world consequences. The difficulty in holding anonymous digital vigilantes accountable poses a significant challenge for law enforcement and legal systems.[14]  Moreover, ascertaining the nature and degree of threat, to provide protection to the victims is an extremely difficult task, as it is difficult to ascertain whether the threat sent online is accompanied by an intention to actually enforce the same, or not. These peculiarities make digital vigilantism distinct from other forms of vigilantism and hence, the legal system needs to adapt so that it can effectively deal with the same.

4. Assessing the Legal Landscape in India for Addressing Digital Vigilantism

In recent years, the rise of digital vigilantism has presented a complex challenge for legal systems worldwide, and India is no exception. As discussed above, digital vigilantism comes with its own set of challenges, which the present legal system is not well equipped to deal. In India, no law deals specifically with vigilante activities. The Supreme Court in Tehseen S Poonawalla v Union of India gave guidelines to prevent mob lynching and violence.[15] Its applicability however is restricted to ‘violent’ acts. Recently, the Bharatiya Nyaya (Second) Sanhita, under section 103(2) mentions mob lynching as a separate offence. However, its scope is limited to mob lynching causing the death of a person. Hence, it is restricted in its scope and has limited utility when it comes to dealing with digital vigilantism. The IT Act, 2000 deals with online hate speech. In Sukumar, the court clarified that hate speech on social media is not protected by the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.[16] However, any restriction to the freedom of speech and expression needs to be ‘reasonable’. It is essential to deal with hatred propagated online while at the same time ensuring that the restrictions put in are not disproportionate. A delicate balance needs to be found between the two. A holistic approach, balancing the imperative to curb online harm with the preservation of fundamental rights, is essential. It is important to create mechanisms that are effectively able to deal with the new challenges posed by the rise of digital vigilantism. Continuous assessment and refinement of these legal tools in response to evolving challenges in the digital space are crucial to effectively combatting digital vigilantism in India. A clear policy framework will go a long way in ensuring that these objectives are met.

5. Conclusion

The surge of digital vigilantism in India poses a multifaceted challenge that demands a nuanced legal response. The existing legal framework, rooted in laws like the Bharatiya Nyaya (Second) Sanhita and the Information Technology Act, struggles to comprehensively address the unique dynamics of digital vigilantism, necessitating the need for a clearer policy framework to deal with rising digital vigilantism. This process must begin by recognizing the broader context of vigilantism, both traditional and digital, and the socio-cultural factors contributing to its prevalence in India. The lack of confidence in the legal system underscores the intricate relationship between perceived legal ineffectiveness and public support for extrajudicial actions. This creates a complex situation that requires careful consideration.

Moving into the realm of digital vigilantism, there are some practical problems faced while dealing with the same. The anonymity afforded to online actors, the swift and borderless nature of mobilization through social media platforms, and the multifaceted actions involved contribute to the complexity of the issue. The limitations of the existing legal framework become evident, with no specific laws addressing digital vigilantism and constraints in current legislation like the Information Technology Act, 2000, in effectively tackling this contemporary challenge. While the efforts of the judiciary to create guidelines to deal with this issue effectively, and recognition of the issue of vigilantism, particularly mob lynching, by the legislature, is commendable, there is a need for a comprehensive legal framework to deal with the issue. A clear and adaptable policy framework is imperative to address the intricacies of digital vigilantism in India. Continuous assessment and refinement of legal instruments, incorporating a holistic approach, will be pivotal in achieving the delicate balance required to combat digital vigilantism while upholding the principles of justice, free expression, and individual rights.

References: