Image owned by Debarati Halder

Introduction

Often we get to hear about digital arrest, stalking, workplace sexual harassment related communication, online bomb hoax and so on. If we analyse the nature of the above mentioned offences, we may see some are targeted to specific individuals (like threatening or hurling intimidating comments, bullying), some are targeted towards the State (consider bomb hoax cases where the sender generally shares information about places where bomb is kept or place which may fall within the vicinity of the bomb blast). If we look at the communications thus received, we may see that the recipient is the victim and the sender is the accused. But this does not mean that it is only the sender who may be considered as the sole accused or the recipient is the only victim. Criminal cases on offensive digital communication may often fail due to huge lack of understanding about the concepts of recipients and senders and the other concerned stakeholders in this regard.

Let us now analyse two case studies:

1. In April, 2025 Thiruvananthapuram airport received bomb threat via email. Reportedly several hotels in Kerala, a popular tourist destination for its natural scenic beauty in the south western coastal region in India, received emails containing bomb threats.
2. In  a news report published in August, 2025, Mumbai police rescued  a 61 year old woman who was reportedly subjected to digital arrest and transferred large sums of money to fraudsters.

The recipient in the first case was the airport. In the second case, the woman is the recipient of communications that made her to believe that if she does not transfer the amount, she would be in legal trouble. While in the latter case,    the victim is a single female recipient, in the former, the mail would have been received by an individual who may have been handling the official mail id of the airport, which is a government entity. But in this case, the individual who opened the mail and read the mail is not the actual recipient. As the mail was received by the airport authorities in its official email id, legally, the recipient would be the Thiruvananthapuram airport authority.

Addressee as explained by Information Technology Act, 2000(amended by 2008)

Who now becomes the addressee- ‘victim’? a clear reading of S.2(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000(amended in 2008) would clear doubts in this regard.

This provision defines the term addressee in the following words:

“Addressee means a person who is intended by the originator to receive the electronic record but does not include any intermediary.”

Essentially the origin of the concept of addressee here can be attributed to Indian Contract Act, 1872 which throws light on completion of communication of a proposal under S.4 : it says

The communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made. The communication of an acceptance is complete, — as against the proposer, when it is put in a course of transmission to him, so as to be out of the power of the acceptor; as against the acceptor, when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer.  The communication of a revocation is complete, — as against the person who makes it, when it is put into a course of transmission to the person to whom it is made, so as to be out of the power of the person who makes it; as against the person to whom it is made, when it comes to his knowledge.

The acceptor is the one who receives the communication and has authority to act upon the acceptance or rejection of the proposal made through the communication. This “acceptor” is the recipient and the addressee of the communication.

The term “Addressee” under the S2(b) of the Information Communication Act (Amended in 2008) shall therefore include the direct recipient who can take action on the communication him/herself, or the recipient who may act on the communication on behalf of the organization as he may have been authorized to take any decision. Addressee also necessarily include the organization that has received the communication through its email address or any other communication handle that are operated by authorized stakeholder.

Noticeably, intermediary would not be considered as an addressee even though it provides services to receive, store send messages on electronic platforms.

When addressee becomes a victim?

Addressee therefore can become a victim of offensive communication if the said communication carries threat, hatred, intimidation, misleading or fraudulent in nature or is a part of defamatory statement. Addressee him/her/itself  can also have locus standi in the courts for seeking justice if the communication falls within the parameter of offensive communication.  In cases where the addressee is a minor or have a juridical personality, the parents, guardians and authorized stakeholders /officers can have locus standi. But there remains an exception: if the addressee is a minor and is subjected online sexual offences or offensive communication that creates threat, hatred etc, he/she can also directly lodge complaints with the criminal justice machineries. The courts in such cases may allow the parents and guardians to assist and represent her in specific cases.

In all the above cases, addressee however also retains the right to be rescued/rehabilitated/compensated directly for the offensive communications received by him/her/it.

Concluding remarks

Please note: if you are addressee who may have received any offensive communication, or you may be knowing an addressee  who wants to communicate to reporting authorities of criminal justice machinery or grievance redressal cells, please contact the nearest police station or lodge your complaints through www.cybercrimes.gov.nic  and do not communicate directly with the sender of the offensive communication.

Please note: If you want to use this content, please cite it as Halder Debarati (August, 2025). Parties to digital communication: know who is the addressee and whether she is  a victim too. Published in https://internetlegalstudies.com/2025/08/17/parties-to-digital-communication-know-who-is-the-addressee-and-whether-she-is-a-victim-too-by-dr-debarati-halder/ on 17-08-2025