Discuss the adequacy of India's legal framework in protecting minors from online intimidation and vigilante harassment, distinct from sexual offence protections under POCSO.

POCSO, 2012 shields children only from sexual offences [2]. When a minor NEET-protest participant faced online threats and vigilante "bragging", the Supreme Court itself had to order action on the Parliament Street FIR and direct Uttar Pradesh Police to protect her family [1] — exposing a framework that is broad in principle but thin in child-specific design.

Protections that do exist outside POCSO

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 punishes criminal intimidation, stalking and defamation, covering threats delivered online [3].
• Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 treats a child at risk of threat or violence as a "child in need of care and protection", bringing Child Welfare Committees into play [4].
• IT Act, 2000 (ss. 67, 79) with the IT Rules, 2021 mandate intermediary due diligence, grievance officers and time-bound takedown of harmful content [5][6].
• National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal and helpline 1930 under I4C permit anonymous reporting of cybercrimes against children [7].
• Article 21/32 writ jurisdiction works as a constitutional backstop, as the recent protective directions show [1].

Where the framework falls short

• No child-specific offence of online intimidation or doxxing; minors fall back on adult-centric BNS sections, without POCSO's special courts, mandatory identity confidentiality and child-friendly procedure [2][3].
• Enforcement, not drafting, is the gap — an FIR existed, yet movement came only after apex-court intervention [1].
• Federal friction: FIR in Delhi, protection duty on UP Police, with no standing inter-state protocol [1].
• The Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 is witness- and trial-centric, offering no tailored cover to a minor targeted by an online mob [8].
• Takedown remains reactive; virality outruns grievance timelines [6].

The deficit is thus institutional rather than statutory. Extending POCSO-style confidentiality and dedicated child units to non-sexual online harm, backed by a child-sensitive protection protocol under the Witness Protection Scheme and faster intermediary compliance, would let ordinary policing deliver what currently needs a writ — securing the child's Article 21 dignity as a matter of routine.