[This article is authored by Anjuli Pandey, II-year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University. It examines the legal gaps in India’s approach to sexual harassment in virtual reality spaces like the Metaverse, analyzing existing laws under the IPC, IT Act, POCSO Act, and BNS, and proposes legal reforms based on international practices to better protect users, especially children, from harm in these spaces.]
Behind the Avatars, Real Voices Cry: Can Indian Law Catch Up with Virtual Sexual Violence?
Imagine entering into a virtual reality (“VR”) game on a popular Metaverse platform, and your avatar (your digital character) is groped and virtually raped because the platforms are designed in such a manner that users can talk about sex, and where their avatars can have virtual sex. The most worrying part is that children and adults may potentially socialise together in such spaces. Unfortunately, such incidents are not isolated ones. Instances of sexual harassment are becoming increasingly prevalent in virtual spaces as technology, such as the Metaverse, continues to evolve.
The Metaverse is a fully immersive 3D environment that allows users to interact with other users around the globe through avatars in a world that feels almost entirely real. With its emerging role, problems are also emerging. Developments such as Elon Musk’s Neuralink blur the line between the real and virtual world. Along with its mission to build a safe and effective clinical BMI (Brain Machine Interface) system, Neuralink’s recent demonstration of a monkey playing the video game Pong with the help of an implanted brain chip reflects the exceptional potential of brain-computer interfaces.
In India, some laws primarily come into play when incidents of online sexual harassment occur; however, their ambit remains narrow and does not extend to the VR. With global leaders in technology offering VR services, increased access to VR technology is observable, and there is potential for a considerably more extensive market. This blog calls for an urgent need to establish adequate legal mechanisms addressing virtual sexual harassment to establish a safe and inclusive environment for all.
A Crime in Code: The UK Case That Forced Us to Look Closer
In January 2024, the United Kingdom (“UK”) faced its first-ever registered case of virtual gang rape in the Metaverse, an event that sent shockwaves through the legal and virtual communities alike. A sixteen-year-old girl reported that her avatar was allegedly gang raped by several male avatars while they were engaged in a VR game on a popular Metaverse platform. It was the kind of VR experience that was so vividly presented through a headset that it would severely cause psychological distress akin to actual sexual assault.
The incident in question, though, is not an isolated one. A BBC News researcher, posing as a thirteen-year-old girl, witnessed grooming, sexual material, racist insults, and a rape threat in the VR world. The researcher visited VR rooms where avatars were simulating sex. Users displayed sex toys and condoms, and numerous adult men approached her. One man reportedly told the researcher that avatars could “get naked and do unspeakable things.” Others talked about “erotic role-play.”
As per the 2024 Statistics, Roblox is the most popular game in the Metaverse and allows children under thirteen to play the game, with over seventy million daily active users. It is one of the most popular games among children in the world. Roblox sex games are commonly referred to on the platform as “condos.” In these games, players completely disregard Roblox’s rules. The most worrying part is that children and adults may socialise together in these spaces. Much of the content shared in condo chats is too explicit even for adult news platforms, let alone a game designed for children.
Not only children but also adults have reportedly experienced sexual harassment in the Metaverse. One of the early examples of this was about a researcher from SumOfUs, who wrote that her avatar was sexually assaulted in Meta’s Horizon Worlds. She mentioned that male avatars surrounded her, groped her, and made sexual innuendos. She described that event as being very psychologically disturbing despite not having any physical contact. The researcher stresses how, even in virtual environments, these assaults can have a significant emotional impact on the victims.
Numerous women have since reported unsettling experiences on platforms like Horizon Worlds, as harassment in the Metaverse feels particularly invasive due to the immersive nature of the VR experience.
Legal Lacuna Surrounding Metaverse Sexual Violence
There is a vast vacuum in the Indian laws where no explicit rules and regulations exist that directly address or prohibit sexual harassment in VR. However, there are specific provisions that slightly address the growing issue of online sexual harassment, especially among children.
One of the current legislations that touches upon the issue of online sexual harassment is Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”). It criminalizes cyberstalking, providing protection for women against online harassment. Moreover, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (“POCSO”) Act, 2012, comprises provisions to tackle child pornography in digital spaces. Landmark cases, such as State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti, among India’s first cyberstalking convictions, have set important precedents. Another noteworthy case is X v. Union of India, which highlighted the urgent need for stricter laws against non-consensual pornography and image-based abuse.
Section 66E (punishment for violation of privacy) of the Information Technology (“IT”) Act, 2000, is aimed at addressing the sexual harassment taking place through online platforms. However, it does not extend to punishing the predators in instances of sexual harassment in VR. Some specific provisions of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (“BNS”) address sexual instances happening in the real world. Section 75 of the BNS describes an act of sexual harassment committed by a ‘man.’ Moreover, Section 79 of the BNS describes the words, gestures, or acts intended to insult the modesty of a ‘woman.’ These definitions do not mention sexual offences taking place in a virtual space. Furthermore, Avatars not being considered an entity that laws can regulate further complicates the possibility of bringing in legislation to punish the molesters. It is concerning to notice how the possibility of sexual harassment of men is completely negated, making us wonder if laws would even consider the same in VR.
Additionally, specific other provisions of the IT Act are helpful when it comes to addressing the issue of sexual harassment on online platforms: some of these include Section 72 (penalty for breach of confidentiality and privacy), Section 67 (punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form), and Section 67A (punishment for publishing or transmitting material containing sexually explicit acts, etc., in electronic form). Though currently not considered, if these provisions extend the definition to include the instances occurring in the virtual world, these provisions can counter them. However, simply broadening the definition of these provisions will not be a long-term solution. Concentrated efforts must be made to forge targeted legislation that explicitly criminalizes these acts.
Beyond Borders, Better Protections?
The world is competing in a race to position itself as a champion of immersive technology. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has said virtual-and-augmented-reality-powered devices will eventually replace mobile phones and some in-person communication. As pre-emptive measures, various governments and corporations are introducing policies and deals. While Indian law remains silent mainly on virtual sexual abuse, some jurisdictions have begun experimenting with frameworks that could offer valuable cues. These aren’t perfect, but they signal an emerging legal consciousness around immersive tech.
Across the Atlantic, the US has introduced the United States Leadership in Immersive Technology Act of 2025. Its centerpiece is an Advisory Panel composed of federal agency heads along with experts from academia, civil society, and the private tech sector. The panel will examine data privacy and security, and advise on ethical XR deployment (implementing and integrating technologies like VR into various environments). Though this law prioritizes innovation and competitiveness, its appointed mechanisms could easily be adapted to consider user safety, consent norms, and regulatory guardrails in immersive platforms.
Australia’s Online Safety Act, 2021, is a forward-leaning statute that puts the burden on digital platforms to protect users from harmful content. Though it stops short of tackling VR or sexual violence in immersive spaces, its architecture is instructive. The Act mandates platforms to detect and take down illegal content like child sexual abuse material and introduces mechanisms such as the Adult Cyber Abuse Scheme for users aged 18 and above. If platforms fail to self-regulate effectively, the government can impose binding industry standards through the eSafety Commissioner. With recent political consensus around banning social media access for children under 16, Australia is grappling with a tricky question: Is the answer restriction or regulation?
Europe, meanwhile, offers both older and newer instruments. The EU Directive 2011/92/EU addresses child sexual exploitation in the digital realm, especially grooming and solicitation. While the Metaverse isn’t named, the language is tech-neutral enough to accommodate new threats. Similarly, Article 36 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child obliges states to protect children from “all other forms of exploitation prejudicial to any aspect of the child’s welfare.” In the age of immersive technologies, this “all” must now include virtual avatars and simulated environments.
The UK’s Online Safety Act takes a step further. It brings a broad definition of “harmful content” into the regulatory net, spanning not just abuse and grooming, but also coercive digital behaviour. Its scope includes social media and any online service accessible in the UK, offering a blueprint for regulating harassment in VR chat rooms and gaming platforms. Complementing this is the Communications Act, 2003, which could serve as a foundation for future reforms around virtual conduct, especially in dealing with indecent or unsolicited content shared through public electronic networks.
Finally, there’s the critical issue of data. The Metaverse runs on biometric and behavioural data, hand tracking, eye movement, voice, and body language, collected in real-time. This goes far beyond conventional browsing data. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) already mandates heightened protections for minors. However, the novel nature of immersive tech and the sheer volume of sensitive inputs complicate its applicability to platforms like Meta or Roblox. Nevertheless, GDPR sets a strong precedent for embedding children’s rights in digital design and enforcing responsible data use.
What’s clear across jurisdictions is that the age of immersive technology demands a modification of existing laws and the creation of new ones. Waiting for perfect harm to occur, or to be legally recognized, is not an option. India must move beyond observation to regulation. The world is not waiting.
From Gaps to Guidelines: Expanding Legal Protections in VR
A rapid shift towards commercially adopting VR is observable. However, there is no significant legislation regulating the Metaverse. While modifying an order of a Sessions Court, which held a thirty-nine-year-old man guilty of groping a twelve-year-old girl and removing her salwar, the court reasoned that, as no specific detail was present regarding the removal of the top or whether the man inserted his hand inside the top and pressed the breast of the child aged twelve years, it would not fall within the definition of ‘sexual assault.’ While the Hon’ble Supreme Court later overturned the judgment, it raises serious concerns concerning sexual assault committed, for its definition remains conflicted in the real world.
Chapter III of the POCSO Act addresses the issue of the use of a child in any form of media, including “any electronic form,” for sexual gratification. This provision includes the possibility of convicting a sexual offender who commits the crime of child pornography in the realm of the Metaverse, provided that the term “any electronic form” covers the Metaverse within its definition.
The existing provisions tackle the challenges accrued by conventional forms of media but are ill-equipped to deal with immersive technology and the Metaverse. It presents a serious global challenge and a golden opportunity for India to step up and pioneer law-making in this field with calculated brainstorming and redefining definitions and provisions. Specific Indian legal provisions have the potential to improve the scope of punishing predators committing sexual violence within VR. Starting with Section 66E (punishment for violation of privacy) of the IT Act; it can be extended to punish the predators in some instances of harassment (such as, violating the privacy of other avatars by videotaping them, circulating images of their private parts, etc.) in the VR, considering the definition of online platforms can further be extended to address instances of online sexual violence taking place in the Metaverse.
Furthermore, Section 78 of the BNS describes the act and punishment for stalking in the real world and through electronic communication. Suppose the definition is considered for future reevaluations. In that case, there is a scope to include the cases of stalking in the virtual world (something that is prevalent in the Metaverse and often results in instances of simulated groping and ejaculating onto the victim’s avatar) within the ambit of “electronic communication.” In Animesh Boxi v. State of West Bengal, the court held that the victim suffered from “virtual rape” every time a user witnessed the video that was uploaded by the accused. The current framework inadvertently creates a haven for sexual predators, enabling them to inflict severe psychological harm on individuals and minors.
While revising the existing laws and bringing in new ones, the accountability that the platform providers hold, along with giving away a space to experience VR reality, must not be forgotten. Taking an example of the “personal boundary” feature introduced by Meta reflects the good side of these platforms. Using this safety feature, one can set up their boundary using virtual walls to prevent avatars from coming too close and limit unwelcome interactions. Roblox’s recent announcement on blocking children under thirteen from messaging others on the online gaming platform is a progressive step toward safeguarding them. Although children can still view public conversations, they cannot engage in private chats without parental approval. It is not productive as the children can still talk to their friends. Still, it rings a bell about the problem prevalent in the chat rooms, highlighting the need for better provisions and legal mechanisms to address it. Hence, collective legal and private mechanisms by the platform providers seem to be the way to address the prevailing issue and protect minors as well as adults from the sexual violence present in VR.
Conclusion
VR is no longer a far-fetched frontier; it is here, immersive, and unregulated. The Metaverse offers spaces where avatars walk, talk, and socialize, but behind those avatars are real people, often children, experiencing harm that our laws have yet to recognize. The psychological impact of such encounters is not hypothetical but real.
Additionally, we have structural blind spots that need to be recognised before the users, especially the minors, are exploited. As India strides forward in adopting immersive technologies, it must also confront the regulatory vacuum surrounding them. The current legal framework is ill-equipped to address crimes that do not leave physical scars but do leave mental ones. Minor tweaks to outdated statutes will not suffice. What we need is a legal overhaul that does not treat virtual violence as a second-tier issue.
Now is the moment to reimagine the scope of legal protection. If society evolves, then our laws must include the Metaverse in that evolution. Let’s not wait for more voices to cry out from behind the avatars. Let’s log out of denial and log into action.