Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Section 78
Stalking
(1) Any man who—
(i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or
(ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, e-mail or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking: Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who pursued it proves that—
(i) it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man accused of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by the State; or
(ii) it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any law; or
(iii) in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified.
(2) Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Why this exists
This provision was first introduced into Indian criminal law as Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, passed after the 2012 Delhi gang-rape case and the Justice J.S. Verma Committee's recommendations. The Committee had flagged that repeated unwanted pursuit — physical or online — often escalates into serious violence and needed to be criminalised as a distinct offence rather than left to vague harassment provisions. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 carries this provision forward almost verbatim as Section 78, recognising both physical stalking and the newer reality of digital surveillance and cyberstalking.
How courts read it
Courts have read the second limb — monitoring online activity — broadly to cover cyberstalking, including creating fake profiles or tracking someone's digital footprint without consent; in Kalandi Charan Lenka v. State of Odisha (Orissa High Court, 2017), the court held that persistent online harassment through fake accounts and morphed images fell within the spirit of this stalking provision even before it was heavily litigated under the BNS. Courts have also emphasised that the accused bears the burden of proving the exceptions (police duty, legal compliance, or reasonable justification), since the provision is structured as a proviso rather than part of the prosecution's initial burden.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Stalking only means physically following someone in person.
Fact: The law also covers digital stalking — secretly monitoring someone's internet use, emails, or online activity counts as stalking too. - Myth: If the man claims he 'meant well' or just wanted a relationship, it's not a crime.
Fact: Intent to pursue a relationship doesn't matter; what matters is whether the woman clearly showed disinterest and he continued anyway. - Myth: Only strangers can be accused of stalking.
Fact: The law applies regardless of prior relationship — friends, colleagues, or ex-partners can all be charged if the conduct fits the definition.