New Delhi: Taking “matters in our own hands” over the continued circulation of child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM) on social media, the Supreme Court has laid down a detailed framework directing the Union of India to create a National Hash and URL List Database, tighten reporting and grievance redressal duties of intermediaries, and consider exemplary fines, while declining to endorse a blanket ban on children's access to the internet.
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Chandran passed the order in miscellaneous applications filed by Just Rights for Children Alliance in its 2024 judgment in Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish. The Court noted that, despite more than two years having passed, there had been “no progress worth the name” in compliance, and that news reports placed before it showed paid promotion of CSEAM through redirect links and websites. It was assisted by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Union of India.
The Court explained that the current system depends on individual reports and removals, with no cross-platform synergy. It described “Hash and URL Data Matching and Listing”, under which content confirmed as CSEAM is given a unique digital identifier, and perceptual hashing, which also uses audio-visual characteristics to defeat attempts to evade detection by resizing or reformatting. It noted that India has no provision requiring intermediaries to use such tools to the extent found in the United States, the United Kingdom, South Korea or Australia.
The Union has been directed to create a National Hash and URL List Database for the sole purpose of detecting and removing CSEAM, either within the Sahyog Portal or as a standalone repository. Entries may be made only after multi-tier verification, with a final determination by at least three trained human analysts, and only through encrypted channels. Where an intermediary finds a match with a known entry, it must disable and remove the content immediately without awaiting further verification. For material of “unknown origin”, it must verify and then report to the authorities and to the database body.
The Court further directed that a prominent notice must replace any content removed as CSEAM, stating whether removal followed the platform's own detection or a database match. Challenges to platform-detected removals will lie through the grievance redressal mechanism and the Grievance Appellate Committee under the IT Rules, while challenges to database-based removals will lie before the authority maintaining the database, for which the Union must frame guidelines.
On reporting, the Court held that removals must be reported under Rule 11 of the POCSO Rules to the Special Juvenile Police Unit, the local police or the cyber-crime portal. CSEAM of unknown origin must be reported within two hours of removal or of resolution of a complaint, while removals of known-origin material must be reported in a consolidated weekly report. Intermediaries must also display grievance officer details prominently and provide a clearly labelled CSEAM reporting category, accessible within two steps from the content.
The Court criticised intermediaries for treating advertisements as compliant merely because they did not explicitly depict abuse, though they promoted tools to create such material. It clarified that the emphasis on visual depiction in Just Rights applied only to the penal provisions of the POCSO Act, whereas the IT Act and Rules are regulatory and impose a broader duty on intermediaries to prevent such harm from being uploaded, hosted or promoted. Complaints must be assessed as a whole, including text, captions and links, by trained grievance officers who record findings under digital signature, acknowledge complaints within 24 hours and give reasons for decisions.
Intermediaries must publish monthly compliance reports, with CSEAM complaints disclosed separately and subject to independent audit. The Union has been asked to consider exemplary fines based on the gravity, duration and recurrence of default and the intermediary's size and turnover. Revenue derived from CSEAM offered behind paywalls or subscriptions should be forfeited and disgorged, and intermediaries were put to strict notice to scrutinise paywalled content rigorously and keep sexually explicit content away from children.
On access to the internet, the Court said it had consciously chosen not to endorse age-based bans, stressing that safety measures must target harmful material and those responsible, and that to keep children off the internet would “be to mistake the victim for the problem.” It noted that such restrictions need age verification and data collection, risk surveillance, and push children towards unregulated platforms. At the same time, it acknowledged the need for safeguards, suggesting parental consent and a “child mode” with private accounts by default for pre-teens, leaving modalities to the Union.
The Court also underscored the need for awareness on digital safety and sex education, and directed that the Union frame guidelines, standard operating procedures and necessary amendments to the IT Act and IT Rules. The Union must file an affidavit on progress and compliance, including on tools used by intermediaries and action taken against defaulters. The matter has been posted for 10.12.2026.
Case Title: Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr. vs. S. Harish & Ors., M.A. Nos. 2553-2554 of 2026 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2161-2162 of 2024
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
