KOCHI: Against the backdrop of the police complaint and subsequent arrest in a case of cyber abuse against actor Honey Rose, concerns have emerged in the public domain about whether a comment or reply can lead to detention.
While individuals have the right to express their opinion, law-enforcement and judicial agencies emphasise that action will be taken based on the severity of the act.
“In this specific case, the offences were charged under sections addressing assault against women, particularly for sexually coloured remarks. When a complaint is filed under this provision of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), registering a case and making an arrest becomes inevitable. Furthermore, it is classified as a non-bailable offence,” said M K Murali, assistant commissioner of Kochi City Cyber Police.
He said that while the Indian Penal Code (IPC) required additional clarity for such arrests, the BNS has resolved these ambiguities. “Under the BNS, a person making a sexually coloured remark will face strict action, whereas the IPC broadly referred to ‘anyone who commits’ such an act, leaving room for interpretation,” he said.
Although categorised as a non-bailable offence, the accused may still be granted bail by the magistrate, because the maximum punishment is three years or a fine. However, the streamlined procedures under BNS create a sense of urgency, leading to immediate action, including arrests, he added.
Regarding individuals using fake or anonymous identities, a cyber police source clarified: “Anyone engaging in such activities, whether identifiable or anonymous, will be treated equally. Fake IDs can be traced through IP addresses, internet connectivity, and other digital footprints, either directly or via social media platforms, and appropriate action will follow.”
For those making public comments or remarks that do not specifically outrage the modesty of a woman, the police response is more measured. “In such cases, immediate arrest or booking of a case may not be possible. The individual may be summoned for questioning and further details collected under Section 149 of the CRPC and the KP Act,” the source added. However, stringent actions may be taken if evidence points to a cognizable offence.
Says G R Aji Raj, a senior lawyer with the Kerala High Court: “Such activities, previously addressed under Section 354 of the IPC and now reframed as Section 69 under the BNS, prescribe up to three years of imprisonment. Following the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in the Lalita Kumari case, if a woman files a complaint about such offences, an FIR must be registered immediately. The accused will then face trial and must prove their innocence.”
He emphasised that the course of action against a suspect depends on the final police report.
Online disinhibition
Commenting on such flagrant behaviour, Dr C J John, senior consultant psychiatrist with Medical Trust Hospital, said, “Many of these individuals exhibit online disinhibition syndrome, which stems primarily from a distorted mentality that fails to value gender equality and sexuality. Additionally, some individuals, driven by male chauvinism and an urge to assert dominance, also including in this group. Despite knowing they can be tracked, these individuals irrationally believe they will remain anonymous in cyber space.”
He noted that people engaging in such toxic cyber behaviour rarely consider whether they are engaging in constructive criticism. “There is also another group that supports such individuals, enabling this negative trend,” he added. Dr John emphasised the need of strict online discipline, without which, individuals engaging in such actions will face consequences, including legal action.