JOIN US‘Locker room’ scandal raises legal questions
On May 3, screenshots of chats from a private chat group on Instagram called ‘bois locker room’ went viral. The chats showed high school boys discussing gang-rape and morphing and sharing pictures of underage girls.
The Delhi police have tracked down almost all the boys in the group and arrested the administrator, who, while being a class 12 student, is not a minor. On May 4, the Delhi Commission for Women took suo moto cognizance and asked the police to file an FIR, and Instagram to spell out what action it would take.
Consent question
A common defence was that some of the girls had put up private pictures on Instagram for public viewing, so there was nothing wrong in sharing them. Advocate Geeta Mohan explains that Section 354 C of the IPC can be used to bring voyeurism to book. “It is an offence when Instagram posts are disseminated without the consent of the girls,” she says. Section 354D says a man monitoring a woman’s use of the Internet, email or any other form of electronic communication amounts to stalking.
“The images included those of underage girls. In such circumstances sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 should be invoked,” she explains.
Geetha advises that women can use the IPC amended after the Nirbhaya case i.e Section 354A (sexual harassment) and Section 67 and 67A of the IT Act, which deal with the publishing or transmitting of obscene material.
If the victims are minors, the parents may, on behalf of the victim, file a complaint and invoke the POCSO Act. Moreover, if the victim is a minor, anyone who comes to know of an offence, such as a counsellor, principal, or even a stranger, is required to bring the act to the knowledge of the police.
“If the accused are between 16 and 18m they should be treated and tried as adults. Even thinking of wanting to carry out a sexual crime against the said girls amounts to, in my opinion, a heinous crime after the 2015 amendment to the Juvenile Justice Act,” she says.
How liable is Instagram
Torsha Sarkar, policy officer at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru, says platforms like Instagram moderate speech at two levels.
“We have a Supreme Court judgement which states that Instagram, or any other intermediary for that matter, is liable to remove ‘harmful’ content but only on the receipt of a takedown order either issued by a court or a government agency,” she says. The second level is Instagram’s internal moderation policy.
“But in the present case, the matter becomes murkier when you realise the behaviour was restricted to a private messaging group. All norms regulating ‘speech’ envision public speech. Expecting Instagram to monitor behaviour in private messaging groups may just open another can of worms,” she cautions.
Interception, monitoring and handing over of information collected by apps are governed by a bunch of laws, including the Telegraph Act, the Information Technology Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure.
“All of these legislations have their own procedures, and to some extent, allow oversight and safeguards. I do not think the social media platform can outright object to the process — most of the laws mandate this access,” says Torsha.
The problem, she believes, is that the process of information access is done in an ad-hoc manner. “The exact merits and urgency of doing so in this case aside, if this is allowed to be done, it will set a dangerous precedent,” she says.
Report remotely and anonymously
Cyber security expert Rakshit Tandon says the government’s cyber crime platform cybercrime.gov.in allows remote, anonymous reporting of cyber crimes against women and children.
The complaints allowed include child pornography, child sexual abuse and rape and gang-rape material.
Tandon says the locker room scandal could land the perpetrator in jail for up to seven years and a fine of up to Rs 10 lakh.
Digital footprints remain and it is possible to track group members even if they have deleted their chats, he says.