Technology-Facilitated Gender-Based Violence in India: Reporting Barriers and Survivor-Centred Response

CASE STUDY 18 / 200

India — digital safety and online abuse

Independent desk-research draft; secondary research, not a prevalence estimate

Abstract

This case study examines technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV), including cyberstalking, doxxing, impersonation, non-consensual intimate-image sharing, sextortion and online harassment. A 2025 report by Equality Now and Breakthrough discusses survivor experiences and legal responses in India. A separate survey report by The Dialogue and the Alliance for Cyber Trust and Safety describes research involving 4,000 respondents across 10 Indian cities. These sources indicate a broad and varied problem space, but the survey sample should not be treated as a nationally representative prevalence estimate unless its methodology supports that claim.

Keywords

technology-facilitated gender-based violence; cyberstalking; doxxing; intimate images; reporting; India

1. Introduction and Research Question

How can digital safety products help people document, report and seek support for online abuse without increasing exposure or promising content removal?

2. Methodology and Evidence Selection

Desk review of the Equality Now/Breakthrough report page, The Dialogue/ACTS survey report page, and official Ministry of Women and Child Development information on technology-facilitated crimes. This case study does not reproduce individual survivor narratives or claim a new prevalence estimate. Specific survey statistics should be extracted from the full report only after reviewing sampling, definitions and limitations.

3. Case and Context

Digital abuse can cross platforms and move quickly between impersonation, threats, publication of private information, image-based abuse and offline intimidation. Survivors may have to navigate several systems: platform reporting, cybercrime reporting, law enforcement, legal support and trusted personal contacts. The fact that an incident occurs online does not make its consequences merely virtual; it can affect privacy, safety, employment, relationships and mobility.

4. Evidence-Based Findings

• The Equality Now/Breakthrough report published in November 2025 focuses on survivor narratives and legal responses to TFGBV in India, including doxxing, stalking, morphing and non-consensual distribution of intimate images.
• The Dialogue/ACTS publication describes a survey of 4,000 respondents across 10 Indian cities and identifies cyberstalking, doxxing, impersonation and economic fraud among forms of abuse examined. The landing page highlights reporting barriers; national representativeness should not be assumed.
• A February 2026 Ministry of Women and Child Development release acknowledges misuse of social media and dating applications for fake profiles, impersonation, cyber harassment, deepfakes and non-consensual sharing of images.
• Reporting, content removal, investigation and survivor support are distinct processes. A submitted report does not guarantee immediate removal, successful investigation or prevention of further distribution.

5. Discussion

Product design should avoid asking survivors to upload intimate material unless absolutely necessary and legally justified. Evidence capture must be optional, encrypted, access-controlled and designed around user safety. Users should be told that screenshots or exports can create additional copies and that platform processes vary. Avoid automated classification that treats an allegation as proven or automatically contacts family, employers or police without informed consent, except where a clearly disclosed legal obligation applies.

6. Legal and Policy Context

India’s legal framework includes provisions under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and other applicable laws. Relevant sections and remedies depend on the facts, content and jurisdiction. Official cybercrime reporting routes and current legal advice should be consulted. This is general research information, not legal advice.

7. Potential VETRIPEN Design Implications

The following are product-design hypotheses for evaluation, not proven interventions:

• Offer a private incident checklist that lets users choose what to record and where to store it.
• Provide direct links to official reporting routes and platform reporting instructions, with last-verified dates.
• Use plain-language warnings before exporting or sharing evidence; allow a quick exit and discreet notifications.
• Never promise that content can be removed everywhere or that a report will lead to prosecution.
• Make trusted-contact sharing optional and granular; do not expose an abuse report to contacts by default.

8. Suggested Evaluation Metrics

• Successful completion of a voluntary reporting-navigation task in usability testing.
• User understanding of what an app can and cannot do; false-expectation rate.
• Privacy and security review findings, including access-control and retention testing.
• User-reported sense of control and safety; no collection of intimate content for product analytics.

9. Limitations and Verification Status

This is a secondary desk review, not an original survey or systematic review. Reports differ in sampling, definitions and intended use. No prevalence percentage is calculated here. The complete reports and current legal provisions must be reviewed before publication or operational implementation.

10. Conclusion

TFGBV response should centre survivor choice, privacy, evidence safety and honest expectations. VETRIPEN can provide navigation and preparation support, but should not claim to adjudicate abuse, guarantee takedowns or replace official and specialist support.

11. References and Source Notes

Sources were identified through desk research. Their presence below does not imply that every claim has been independently audited. Review the original documents and record access dates before external publication.

1. Equality Now and Breakthrough. Experiencing technology-facilitated gender-based violence in India: survivor narratives and legal response. 4 November 2025. https://equalitynow.org/resource/reports/experiencing-technology-facilitated-gender-based-violence-in-india/
2. The Dialogue and Alliance for Cyber Trust and Safety. BreaktheSilo: Empirical Insights into Tech-Facilitated Gender-Based Violence in India. https://thedialogue.org.in/publication/survey-report-breakthesilo-empirical-insights-into-tech-facilitated-gender-based-violence-in-india/
3. Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Women and Child Development. Victim-centric approach to strengthen safety, security and empowerment of women, including protection against technology-facilitated crimes. 11 February 2026. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2226335&lang=1&reg=3
4. National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, Government of India. https://cybercrime.gov.in/

12. Declarations

Research type: secondary desk research. No new human-participant data were collected for this report.

Peer review: not peer reviewed.

Conflicts/funding: prepared as part of Digital Catalyzt’s independent research and product-design programme; no external funding is declared in this draft.

AI assistance: AI tools assisted with drafting and organisation. Human source verification and editorial review are required before publication.

DISCLAIMER — INDEPENDENT RESEARCH DOCUMENT. This document has been prepared privately by Digital Catalyzt as part of an independent research and product-design programme related to women’s safety and the proposed VETRIPEN service. It is provided for research, education, discussion and preliminary product-planning purposes only. Unless expressly stated and documented, it has not undergone independent peer review and is not a journal publication, government statement, legal opinion, medical or psychological assessment, or formal investigation. Claims are limited to the sources and scope stated; sources may contain limitations, errors, incomplete data or later revisions. Allegations must not be presented as established findings unless an authoritative process has established them. Hypothetical examples must not be represented as real events or interviews. Legal and policy discussion is general information, not legal advice; verify current rules with qualified professionals or responsible authorities. Proposed VETRIPEN features are design hypotheses unless independently evaluated. This document does not guarantee prevention of harm, emergency response, message delivery, confidentiality in every circumstance or any particular outcome. Readers should assess the cited evidence, limitations and local context independently.

← Back to all research