Storage or watching child pornography is offence under POCSO Act: SC [Read Judgment]

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that downloading, storage or watching of a sexually explicit and abusive material involving children is an offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).

In a landmark judgment, a bench of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala directed the courts against use of "child pornography" materials which involved the actual abuse of a child.

"The Parliament should seriously consider to bring about an amendment to the POCSO for the purpose of substituting the term “child pornography” that with “child sexual exploitative and abuse material” (CSEAM) with a view to reflect more accurately on the reality of such offences. The Union of India, in the meantime may consider to bring about the suggested amendment to the POCSO by way of an ordinance," the bench said.

The court suggested for implementing comprehensive sex education programs that include  information about the legal and ethical ramifications of child  pornography, as it can help deter potential offenders. These programmes should address common misconceptions and provide young people with a clear understanding of consent and the impact of exploitation, it said.

The court asked the Union government to consider constituting an Expert Committee tasked with devising a comprehensive programme or mechanism for health and sex education, as well as raising awareness about the POCSO among children across the  country from an early age, for ensuring a robust and well-informed approach to child protection, education, and sexual well-being.

The court also held the protection granted to the social media intermediary under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act would not apply if it fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to that material on that resource without vitiating the evidence in any manner on being notified by the appropriate Government or its agency that any information, data or communication link residing in or connected to a computer resource controlled by the intermediary is being used to commit the unlawful act.

The apex court overturned the Madras High Court's judgment of January 11, 2024 which quashed an FIR and charge sheet filed against S Harish after he was allegedly found watching such child exploitative and abusive materials on his mobile phone.

The High Court had held although the two videos depicting children engaged in a sexual activity were found to have been downloaded and stored in the mobile phone belonging to the accused and assuming that he had watched the same yet the same would not constitute an offence under Section 14(1) of the POCSO.

It had also said mere watching or downloading of child pornography without any transmission or publication of the same does not fall within the purview of Section 67B of the IT Act.

NGO, Just Right for Children Alliance, led by senior advocate H S Phoolka challenged the validity of the High Court's judgment and National Commission for Protection of Child Rights led by senior advocate Swarupma Chaturvedi intervened into the matter questioning the correctness of the judgment.

The bench found the High Court committed an egregious error in passing the judgment.

It restored the criminal proceedings against the accused in the fast track court of Tiruvallur district in connection with the FIR lodged on January 29, 2020.

In its judgment, the bench, referring to Section 15 of the POCSO Act, said the mens rea is to be gathered from the manner in which the pornographic material was found to be stored or in possession and any other material apart from such possession or storage that is indicative of any facilitation or actual transmission, propagation, display or distribution of such material.

Also Read : Storage or watching child porno is offence under POCSO Act: SC

"Section 15 of the POCSO provides for three distinct offences that penalise either the storage or the possession of any child pornographic material when done with any particular intention specified under subsection(s) (1), (2) or (3) respectively. It is in the nature and form of an inchoate offence which penalises the mere storage or possession of any pornographic material involving a child when done with a specific intent prescribed thereunder, without requiring any actual transmission, dissemination etc," the bench said.

The court said the police as well as the courts while examining any matter involving the storage or possession of any child pornography, finds that a particular sub-section of Section 15 is not attracted, then it must not jump to the conclusion that no offence at all is made out under Section 15 of the POCSO. If the offence does not fall within one particular subsection of Section 15, then it must try to ascertain whether the same falls within the other sub-sections or not.

"Any visual depiction of a sexually explicit act which any ordinary person of a prudent mind would reasonably believe to prima facie depict a child or appear to involve a child, would be deemed as ‘child pornography’ and the courts are only required to form a prima facie opinion to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that the material appears to depict a child from the perspective of any ordinary prudent person for any offence under the POCSO that relates to child pornographic material, such as Section 15," the bench said.

The court pointed out such satisfaction may be arrived at from any authoritative opinion like a forensic science laboratory (FSL) report of such material or opinion of any expert on the material in question, or by the assessment of such material by the courts themselves.

The court also pointed out Section 67B of the IT Act is a comprehensive provision designed to address and penalise the various electronic forms of exploitation and abuse of children online.

"It not only punishes the electronic dissemination of child pornographic material, but also the creation, possession, propagation and consumption of such material as-well as the different types of direct and indirect acts of online sexual denigration and exploitation of the vulnerable age of children," the court said.

The bench said Section(s) 67, 67A and 67B respectively of the IT Act being a complete code, ought to be interpreted in a purposive manner that suppresses the mischief and advances the remedy and ensures that the legislative intent of penalising the various forms of cyber-offences relating to children and the use of obscene or pornographic material through electronic means is not defeated by a narrow construction of these provisions.

With regard to the use of the term "child pornography", the court felt, it can lead to a trivialisation of the crime, as pornography is often seen as a consensual act between adults. It undermines the victimisation.

The court opined "child sexual exploitative and abuse material" (CSEAM) rightly placed the emphasis on the exploitation and abuse of the child, highlighting the criminal nature of the act and the need for a serious and robust response.

In a press release, Bhuwan Ribhu, petitioner and Founder of Just Rights for Children Alliance, said “India, has once again, paved the way globally by laying down the framework for prevention and protection of children from this transnational and organised crime. This judgment will have long lasting and global impact on society, crime and child rights and will be etched in history. When a person is searching for and downloading ‘child exploitation and abuse material’, they are creating the demand for the rape of our children. This judgment also breaks away from the conventional terminology of ‘child pornography’ which is seen as an adult indulgence and creates the shift in narrative to ‘child exploitative and abuse material’, being a crime."

Just Rights for Children Alliance is an alliance of over 120 NGOs working throughout India against child sexual exploitation, child trafficking and child marriage.

Notably, there has been a glaring increase in child pornography cases in the country, rising from 44 cases in 2018 to 1171 cases in 2022, as per the data by the National Crime Records Bureau.

 [Read Judgment]