Internet Vigilantism in India: The Rise of Online Justice and Public Shaming

The Internet has revolutionised citizens’ engagement in public affairs. It has empowered the masses to create and share content via platforms such as X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp and YouTube. They report, uncover corruption, engage the masses and bring accountability into the open (Jenkins et al., 2016). Within India, this digital shift created a new and growing trend, “internet vigilantism”.

Trottier (2017) suggests that internet or digital “vigilantism” employs visibility rather than actual violence or community policing. In the digital era, viral videos, leaked information, organised hashtag manoeuvres, public naming and shaming are effective tools to help shape the moral, political or legal landscape. Also in this article, we’ll be taking a look at this phenomenon. In which citizens collectively investigate, expose, shame and sometimes punish people beyond the formal justice system and other institutional mechanisms (Trottier, 2017; Trottier et al., 2020).

Read More: Law Meets Neuroscience: The Psychology Behind Age-Based Rights and Legal Responsibility

Understanding Digital Vigilantism

Digital vigilantism may be broadly defined as a form of collective citizen action. It’s where citizens investigate, expose, shame or punish individuals without exclusive reliance on the formal legal institution. It does not simply involve expressing opinions; it also calls for real-world action to be taken against the target, often one that goes beyond just the digital realm (Favarel-Garrigues et al., 2020). 

Similarly, Internet vigilantism, or ‘netilantism’, can be accounted for by the internet’s technological ability to considerably augment the regulatory power of common people, as argued by Lennon Chang (2018). Internet users are increasingly carrying out roles traditionally of the domain of policing and criminal investigation in the context of collaborative investigation, crowdsourced evidence collection and social networking (Huey at al., 2013).

A distinction is crucial to make, as internet vigilantism is not just “online activism”. The main objective of activism is to change the functional basis of institutions, while vigilantism attempts to bring about instant corrections. It’s not so much about legal responsibility as establishing speedy moral justice through pressure applied in the public square. These instant corrections have gained visible virality in India in the past decade (Trottier, 2017; Trottier et al., 2020).

Read More: Legal Adulthood at 18: What Neuroscience Reveals About the Developing Brain

Internet Vigilantism Gaining Ground in India

India is fertile ground for digital vigilantism because of three parallel trends.

• The expansion of the Internet in the country has been unprecedented. Over the past decade, hundreds of millions of new cell phone users have brought smartphones to market and cheap mobile data to billions of users, with the result being that information and misinformation travel at a much faster rate (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, 2023).
• Many citizens feel that the formal justice system is non-responsive, slow and inefficient. In these situations, social media seems to have the ability to provide instant visibility and ultimately instant action (Nanda, 2009). According to Chang (2018), the phenomenon of vigilante justice mostly happens when people feel that their existing institutions are ineffective or neglectful due to some wrongdoing. It is therefore that the “vigilantes” see themselves as guardians instead of criminals and want to bridge the gap left by the government. 
• There is an emotional connection on various social media platforms. Anger and outrage spread a lot faster than legal reasoning (Brady et al., 2017; Crockett, 2017). Algorithms serve to propagate emotionally charged content that’s designed to elicit reaction and, in turn, placing inadvertently fuel digital campaigns that quickly build momentum before facts can be checked or double-checked independently. These are emotionally heavy forms of justice being targeted (Cinelli et al., 2021).

Read More: Digital Identity vs Real Identity: How Social Media Shapes Who We Are

Psychology Behind Online Justice

Most Internet vigilantism has multiple causes. The use of humour, memes, hashtag movements, “trolling“, and online coordinated participation makes one feel happy, part of the group, and gives one a feeling of accomplishment. Digital political engagement turns into an entertaining and ideological activity (Udupa, 2019). 

It is because of this observation that many online campaigns bloom to be way too big. There is satisfaction for the participants in participating in a trending hashtag, exposing alleged offenders, and/or contributing to identifying the alleged/identified offender(s). Digital environments reward participation with likes, shares, reposts and followers, making justice a performative public task (Trottier, 2017).

Within digital space, the boundaries between justice, fun and ideological mobilisation can be blurred, as the authors of the article on Favarel-Garrigues et al. (2020) point out. The political nature of naming and shaming is made public, and its visibility as such serves as punishment (Trottier, 2017).  Thus, Internet vigilantism must not be seen as a response. It’s also an outcome of platform design, group identification building, and a performative culture of social media. All of which aims towards some form of accountability to be taken by those responsible (Trottier et al., 2020).

Online Vigilantism Promoting Accountability

Digital vigilantism may in some critical cases have helped to hold the public to account, but it can surely be seen as violent and, in turn, can have repercussions (Jane 2017). Likewise, campaigns online in the wake of sexual harassment accusations, especially India’s #MeToo movement, allowed survivors to navigate the institutional hurdles which prevented them from reporting abuse in the past.

When the allegations were made public, it put pressure on employers, universities and government bodies to take allegations more seriously than previously they weren’t (Jane, 2017). The developments conform to Chang’s (2018) thesis that the role of digital technology has helped to democratise the process of engagement in regulatory procedures. Citizens no longer just report on misconduct; they also gather evidence, check the facts, and organise investigations all through digital networks (Huey et al., 2013).

Furthermore, it is pointed out that there are cases of digital vigilantism that come from a lawful desire for social justice, such as a campaign against sex-based violence, hate speech, discriminatory practices, etc. Public denunciation in these settings can be a corrective action missing from formal institutions in the absence of timely justice (Favarel-Garrigues et al., 2020). But the very mechanisms that can help to see to democratic accountability can have terrible implications when allegations are false. This leads to the rise of misinformation, which spreads like fire (Wardle & Derakhshan, 2017).

Read More: Critical Thinking: The Psychological Shield We Need Against Online Misinformation

Misinformation as the Fuel of Digital Vigilantism 

When social media is being used as the platform for “digital vigilantism,” misinformation is fueling it. In India, fake news sent via WhatsApp forwards, videos, doctored photos, and false narratives on social media have repeatedly turned suspicion into dismay only to quickly escalate into social frenzies in a few unfortunate incidents that end with mob violence (Wardle & Derakhsham, 2017). Digital misinformation, unlike rumours, spreads instantly to geographically remote groups of people, which can then come to feel like legitimate information just because someone “knows someone” who keeps talking about it (Badrinathan et al., 2025). 

However, in some circumstances rumours go beyond the boundaries of false information: they strengthen the prevailing social preconceptions and ideology. In such cases, as a result, fact-checking is not always enough to overcome the emotional stories that “feel” like group stories (Badrinathan et al., 2025). In India, there are often rumours of child kidnapping, cow slaughter, interfaith marriage, or religious desecration comes and go with encrypted messaging applications without much time passing until the facts are confirmed (Arun, 2019; Banaji et al., 2019). 

Read More: The Psychology of Totalitarianism: Why People Obey Dictators

WhatsApp and The Culture of Virality 

Compared to other Western democracies, WhatsApp plays a pivotal role in every conversation in India. Not only on public platforms such as X or Instagram, but information is also shared among groups of families, neighbourhoods, religious communities, workplaces, and political volunteers (Arun, 2019). This half-private facade frequently gives the appearance of security.

Messages sent by relatives or community folks are less likely to be examined critically than what is found in conventional news outlets. This means that the rumours circulate quickly without counter fact-checking in public circulation (Cinelli et al., 2021). Shakuntala Banaji et al. (2019) outline how digital communication has fostered the creation of “vigilante publics” that are organised around audiovisual media, which carry political stories and community values and which have the potential to inspire or engage in “vigilante citizenship.”

These are established through patterns of participation and are not random acts of mob behaviour: violence or intimidation is rationalised as patriotic civic action taken to protect or preserve the country, the religion or the morality. Participants see themselves acting as defenders of the country or community instead of only concerned citizens. Comments cautioning against public shaming sit uneventfully by comparison as expressions of civic duty, and anyone who speaks out against the campaign may be subject to suspicion (Banaji et al., 2019). 

Nationalism and Digital Participation 

Udupa (2019) points out that online participation increasingly merges personal ideology with everyday digital culture. People share political sentiments, and more importantly, users also get satisfaction from getting others to participate in the debate through their hashtags, making it trend and making an opponent’s political stance public.

Not all those involved in harassment or vigilant activity feel responsible in any way. Instead, they believe they are having a legitimate democratic discussion, one that exposes corruption, gives priority to national values and addresses perceived injustices (Udupa, 2019). There have been numerous cases where internet vigilantism fuelled the case to a massive level of virality and demanded immediate justice in the country.

Recent Indian Case Studies

The massive incident in which a minor hit two young adults in the 2024 Pune Porsche crash caused a lot of online controversy. The video shocked people, with a string of court records and media coverage soon to come and furthering the social media frenzy. It resulted in further investigations and scrutiny of the case. Digital activism contributed meaningfully to setting expectations on righting the wrongs of institutions which were thought not to have acted quickly enough at the start (The Hindu, 2024). 

Likewise, another recent rape and murder case in Kolkata involved RG Kar Medical College in 2024, with people demanding justice for the victim. Doctors, students, and the general public used digital platforms to mobilise protests against institutional shortcomings. Doctors, students and everyone were organising protests and contesting institutional shortcomings through digital platforms. While there were legitimate calls for accountability, there were also many unverified theories, some manipulated images, and false allegations as well, which caused authorities to reiterate warnings against misinformation (The Hindu, 2025). 

Similarly, different incidents during communal clashes have involved people alleging child kidnapping and human trafficking before authorities conduct a thorough investigation. When these incidents occur seriously, digital aggression violently turns from symbolism into reality. Internet fury turns to the realm of real weapons where naming, shaming, and cancel culture ignite the whole discussion (Arun, 2019; Banaji et al., 2019).

Read More: Pune Car Crash: A Psycho-developmental Interpretation

Ethics, Privacy and Due Process 

People share personal data, photos, and addresses online to damage someone’s reputation, demonstrating the “weaponisation of visibility” on the internet (Favarel-Garrigues et al., 2020). Rather than a court ruling determining evidence, people are using the internet to collectively decide whether someone is guilty or not, causing evidence to circulate via the “viral algorithm”, powered by the emotions that people share. Instead of judging evidence objectively, social media users circulate it through viral algorithms, which amplify emotional responses (Brady et al., 2017; Crockett, 2017).

Palvai (2016) claims that internet vigilantism is an inherent paradox. It helps citizens be able to question corruption and institutional failures on one hand, and threatens privacy, freedom of expression and the dignity of the individual on the other. Public shaming and crowdsourced investigations can infringe on a person’s personal privacy and result in irreversible impacts on their life. An online harasser is typically anonymous while revealing almost every detail of another’s private life. This imbalance provides little accountability for people initiating digital campaigns (Palvai, 2016).

Chang (2018) has similar warnings of the ethical dangers of Internet vigilantism. Crowdsourced investigations can lead authorities to apprehend the wrong individuals. Digital content can last much longer than an incident, and innocent-looking people can have professional and personal impacts for years after an incident (Chang, 2018). However, these online naming, shaming, cancel culture, and harassment have a different view in the Indian judicial system.

Read More: The Emergence of Student-Led Digital Protests in India

The Indian Legal Perspective

Internet vigilantism has no place in the eyes of Indian law. Digital campaigns extend beyond mere boundaries and create a number of constitutional and statutory considerations (Bhandari, 2022). Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, and the Supreme Court has interpreted this provision to include the right to privacy in the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy judgment. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017).

Thus, this can constitute a violation of constitutional protections in publishing private information without their permission. Likewise, civil and criminal laws can hold people liable for posting defamatory content on the internet, sending threatening messages, stalking, identity theft, impersonation, and publishing intimate information under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Information Technology Act, 2000, and related cybercrime laws.

Read More: Educated, Employed, and Still Expected to Bear a Son: The Gender Paradox in Modern India

Conclusion

One of the most intriguing paradoxes of India’s online democracy is internet vigilantism. It’s an era when the average citizen has unprecedented ability to prove corrupt behaviour, reveal and record injustice, and hold institutions accountable. The ability to inform a conversation in a matter of minutes has made smartphone users among millions of Indians into investigators, witnesses, and publishers ready to change the course of national discussions.

But this visibility levelling process has also made the difference between justice and punishment invisible. People can spread communal hate through the same networks that spread information about corruption. Public outrage may pressure authorities to investigate, but it cannot justly replace a proper investigation. While India is rapidly making the transition to a digital society, it is not about suppressing citizens but about creating responsible ones. The ones who can think in the mode of proof rather than rumours, responsibility rather than vengeance, and constitutional justice rather than online punishment. 

References +

• Arun, C. (2019). On WhatsApp, rumours, and lynchings. Economic & Political Weekly, 54(6), 30–35.
• Badrinathan, S., Chauchard, S., & Siddiqui, N. (2025). Misinformation and support for vigilantism: An experiment in India and Pakistan. American Political Science Review, 119(2), 947–965.
• Banaji, S., Bhat, R., Agarwal, A., Passanha, N., & Sadhana Pravin, M. (2019). WhatsApp vigilantes: An exploration of citizen reception and circulation of WhatsApp misinformation linked to mob violence in India.
• Bhandari, V. (2022). The architecture of modern India: Constitutional culture and digital rights. Oxford University Press.
• Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. A., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2017). Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralised content in social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(28), 7313–7318.
• Cinelli, M., Morales, G. D. F., Galeazzi, A., et al. (2021). The echo chamber effect on social media. PNAS, 118(9).
• Crockett, M. J. (2017). Moral outrage in the digital age. Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 769–771.
• Chang, L. Y. (2018). Internet vigilantism: Co-production of security and compliance in the digital age. In Criminal justice and regulation revisited (pp. 147-160). Routledge.
• Favarel-Garrigues, G., Tanner, S., & Trottier, D. (2020). Introducing digital vigilantism. Global Crime, 21(3-4), 189-195.
• Government of India. (2000). Information Technology Act, 2000.
• Government of India. (2023). Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
• Huey, L., Nhan, J., & Broll, R. (2013). ‘Uppity civilians’ and ‘cyber-vigilantes’: The role of the general public in policing cyber-crime. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 13(1), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895812448086
• Jane, E. A. (2017). Feminist digilante responses to a slut-shaming on Facebook. Social Media+ Society, 3(2), 2056305117705996.
• Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2016). Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture. New York University Press.
• Nanda, V. P. (2009). The “good governance” concept revisited. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 603, 269–283.
• PALVAI, R. (2016). Internet Vigilantism, Ethics and Democracy. Online Anveshana’s International.
• Telecom Regulatory Authority of India. (2023). The Indian Telecom Services Performance Indicators.
• The Hindu. (2024, June 01). Pune Porsche car crash: A speeding car, two deaths and a cover-up. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/pune-porsche-car-crash-a-speeding-car-two-deaths-and-a-cover-up/article68237051.ece
• The Hindu. (2025, January 17). Kolkata doctor rape and murder case: A package. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/west-bengal/kolkata-doctor-rape-and-murder-case-a-package/article68511993.ece
• Trottier, D. (2017). Digital vigilantism as weaponisation of visibility. Philosophy & Technology, 30(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-016-0216-4
• Trottier, D., Gabdulhakov, R., & Huang, Q. (Eds.). (2020). Introducing vigilant audiences. Open Book Publishers.
• Udupa, S. (2019). Nationalism in the digital age. International Journal of Communication, 13, 3147-3166.
• Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making. Council of Europe.