The suicide of Deepak U., a 42-year-old sales executive with a textile company in Kerala, after allegations against him spread across social media has once again brought into focus the destructive power of online pile-ons. Deepak faced harassment after a video posted by Shimjitha Musthafa, a 35-year-old social media content creator, accused him of touching her inappropriately. As the video went viral, posts, screenshots and commentary circulated unchecked, turning the allegation into instant public verdicts.
Similar incidents have happened before. In 2020, actor Rhea Chakraborty became the target of sustained online abuse following the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput. Even before investigations concluded, she was vilified across social media, television debates and digital platforms. The case became one of the most cited examples of social media outrage outpacing evidence.
Mental health professionals say online abuse deepens the victims’ sense of isolation, particularly in the absence of visible institutional support. “Research shows that online shaming and cyberbullying significantly increase the risk of depression and suicidal thoughts, especially when the person at the centre of the controversy feels unheard or cornered,” said Dr Jyoti Kapoor, senior psychiatrist and founder of the mental health centre Manasthali in Gurgaon. “The Kerala case tragically underlines this reality.”
The law provides multiple avenues for those facing sexual harassment, cyber-stalking, criminal intimidation and defamation. Complaints can be lodged with the police or cyber-crime cells, and social media platforms are required to offer grievance redress mechanisms. Courts also have the authority to grant injunctions restraining the circulation of defamatory material.
Despite this legal framework, reporting remains uneven. Complainants say the speed of response and the sensitivity of enforcement is not satisfactory. “There is complete collapse of trust on both sides,” said Ramesh Gupta, a senior criminal lawyer in Delhi. “Women don’t trust the system to protect them, and men don’t trust the system to protect them from being destroyed before trial.”
According to him, the punishment begins before the process. With cyber-crime units remaining unevenly staffed and trained, online content spreads far faster than legal remedies can contain it. Even when posts are taken down, they resurface. “Unlike a criminal case, there is no acquittal from the internet,” Gupta said.
Advocate Aditi Prasanan said judicial timelines, built around fairness and due process, are ill-suited to the pace at which digital abuse spreads. Notices must be issued to all parties, responses have to be filed, and judges are required to hear arguments before passing even interim orders. “In many cases, by the time a court hears a matter, the content has already gone viral, copied and downloaded across platforms,” Prasanan said. “Even if a takedown order is eventually passed, the reputational and psychological damage has already occurred.”
With courts constrained by heavy dockets and procedural backlogs, cyber cases compete for time with bail pleas, criminal trials, and constitutional matters. “The law eventually speaks,” she said, “but delay itself becomes a form of injustice.”
The government recently introduced new rules that require social media platforms to remove unlawful material within three hours of being notified. The earlier deadline was 36 hours. The new rules also apply to AI-generated content, and will take effect from February 20.
These amendments address the structural constraints that limit the ability of law enforcement agencies to intervene swiftly. With most social media platforms headquartered abroad, investigators seeking user details, IP logs or content metadata currently send formal legal requests through Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty mechanisms or platform-specific law enforcement portals.
“These processes are slow by nature,” said a senior cybercrime official. “Even when content is clearly abusive, it can take weeks to receive usable data. By then, the material has been shared, archived and reposted.”
Dr Shweta Sharma, clinical psychologist at Manipal Hospitals, said cases like the one in Kerala underlined that justice, safety and mental health were deeply interconnected. “Only by combining legal accountability with mental-health sensitivity can we prevent justice from turning into a social media trial,” she told THE WEEK.
Experts say controlling cyberbullying requires intervention at several levels. At the enforcement level, cybercrime units need stronger staffing, specialised training, and clearer timelines for responding to complaints.
Courts also play a role. Experts point to the need for quicker interim relief such as temporary injunctions or immediate take-down orders, without waiting for the conclusion of lengthy trials.
Platform accountability remains a pressure point. While social media companies have policies against harassment and abuse, enforcement is often inconsistent. There needs to be stronger action against repeat offenders, better detection of coordinated attacks, and transparent grievance redress mechanisms.
Accessible support systems are also crucial. Mental health experts say crisis helplines, counselling services, and community mental health programmes can serve as early intervention points for those overwhelmed by online abuse.
The Kerala case has once again shown what happens when online spaces move faster than institutions. When investigations are delayed and support systems fail to respond in time, social media fills the gap with consequences that can be devastating.