Why social media 'targeting' of women Gen Z protestors is only latest in India's ‘doxxing' history

The SC PIL is one of many recent concerns that have been raised against doxing — “the act of exposing private or identifying information on the internet about an individual or group without their consent”.

On August 4, the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) filed separate complaints with the National Commission for Women (NCW) and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) over “doxxing and online threats” issued against women who were part of last month’s students’ protest for accountability and reforms in education.

Even though the agitation concluded on July 25, the petitions claimed sustained social media targeting of women protestors. The IFF requested the NCW to summon the police and seek an explanation as to why FIRs had purportedly not been registered against the perpetrators. The body also asked NCPCR to act on the alleged unlawful disclosure of a minor's identity and private information.

Going back in time

Doxxing is not a new phenomenon. The word emerged in the 1990s, where “dropping dox” was used to mean revealing documents to identify information about another person.

The IFF cites a February 2024 Delhi High Court ruling that had purportedly held that victims of doxxing "cannot be left without remedy", and that doxxing "places its subject in exponentially [greater] physical danger". The court reportedly held that if left unchecked, doxxing "could result in violation of the right to privacy".

It also refers to provisions against criminal intimidation or insult to the modesty of a woman in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, sections on identity misuse, privacy-violating images and obscene material of the Information Technology (IT) Act and parts of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, to argue how they could be used in the current scenario.

Also read: Why online trolling of Gen Z women dissenters is yet another proof of growing digital misogyny

“A February 2026 amendment to the IT Rules requiring AI-generated deepfakes to be labelled, with impersonation content, is subject to takedown. There have been about 10 such instances, but the law has still not been enforced,” says Nikhil Pahwa, founder of MediaNama, a portal covering the digital and telecom sectors, talking about whether existing laws are sufficient or whether a specific anti-doxxing law is needed to address the issue.

Pahwa also pushes back on the idea that social media platforms should bear primary responsibility for monitoring doxxing content, referring to the Supreme Court's 2015 ruling in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, under which, he says, “Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, was read down to clarify that intermediaries cannot be compelled to act on private complaints or their own judgement, but must comply with directives from courts or authorised government bodies”.

Adds Pahwa: "How can platforms be the judge? There are a billion messages on platforms — how is it possible for them to apply their mind?" He explains that identifying a single individual's doxxing activity across multiple accounts was a different matter, since platforms can freeze such accounts once identified.

According to Pahwa, platforms are required to cooperate with police, but weak enforcement remains the core problem.

The psychological toll

One of India’s earliest cases of cyber stalking was the Ritu Kohli vs Manish Kathuria case of 2001, where “a homemaker in Delhi started receiving obscene phone calls from strangers after a fake identity using her name and telephone number was created in adult chat rooms”.

Since then, there have been cases such as the 2021 Sulli Deals case, where details of Muslim women were posted on social media, and the Bulli Bai app the following year, targeting Muslim women journalists and activists.

"When personal information is leaked online, one feels the boundary between one's private and public lives is completely gone,” says cyber psychologist Nirali Bhatia, adding that victims usually experience anxiety, hypervigilance, panic attacks, disrupted sleep and persistent fear that someone might appear at their home or workplace. “Even without physical harm occurring, the anticipation of it can be emotionally exhausting,” Bhatia adds.

Also read: Why legal experts, activists are critical of PM Modi’s call to ‘identify and isolate Dimagi Naxals’

According to Bhatia, in all this, women are disproportionately targeted and many respond by self-censoring online, which over time can affect confidence, relationships, and overall wellbeing.

Her guidance for victims, particularly women, centres on a few core steps: “don't handle it alone and don't panic; preserve screenshots and document everything before blocking or deleting content; report to the platform and inform the authorities; and, once sufficient evidence is gathered, strengthen security measures and file a formal complaint”.

Bhatia notes that for women, the experience is often compounded by victim-blaming from family or social circles, and stressed that responsibility for doxxing rests solely with the perpetrator.

“Talking to trusted people or a professional can meaningfully reduce the psychological toll of dealing with it in isolation,” she says, while cautioning family members to “avoid reacting with judgement, anger, or panic” and instead reassure the victim that they are not alone and that the family will address the situation together.

Practical support — helping document incidents, preserve evidence, and accompany the victim to file a police report — matters as much as emotional support.

Bhatia specifically cautions against advising victims not to approach the police, observing this is sometimes suggested to avoid complication but is counterproductive.

She also advises against pressuring victims to delete accounts, withdraw from public life, or erase evidence outright, saying this can worsen the situation.

“Families should avoid engaging with or threatening perpetrators directly and instead keep the focus on safety, acknowledgment and support,” she advises.

To Bhatia, doxxing is fundamentally about power and control.

“Perpetrators are often motivated by revenge, jealousy, or a desire to diminish someone, sometimes rooted in political or ideological disagreement. Disseminating private information becomes a way to intimidate victims and make them feel vulnerable. Online anonymity contributes to this since perpetrators often feel detached both from the real-world consequences of their actions and from the victim's state of mind — a dynamic that group validation and anonymity can compound,” he explains.

In addition to recording evidence immediately, Bhatia advises monitoring what further information is being shared over the following days and weeks and reporting new instances for takedown promptly. She also suggests running a reverse image search on personal photographs and setting up alerts for one's own name.

"Recovering from doxxing is not about erasing your information from the internet," she says, "but about rebuilding your sense of safety and control" — an aspect, she adds, that often gets overshadowed by a narrower focus on technical fixes.

With increased awareness, support for victims has also increased. One example is IFF offering legal assistance to women participants of the recent students’ protest who have since faced alleged doxxing.