Author: Shikha, LLB, Chandigarh University
ABSTRACT
The Supreme Court of India’s judgment in Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish (September 23, 2024) marks a pivotal moment in the legal landscape concerning child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM). The Court addressed critical issues related to the possession, viewing, and distribution of CSEAM, providing clarity on the interpretation of relevant provisions under the Protection of Children from the POCSO Act (Sexual Offences Act, 2012) and the IT Act (Information Technology Act, 2000). This analysis delves into the case’s facts, legal provisions discussed, the Court’s reasoning, and its broader implications.
INTRODUCTION
In the digital age, the proliferation of child sexual exploitation material (CSEM) through the internet has emerged as a significant problem. The accessibility and ease of sharing such material raise serious questions about the extent of legal responsibility of individuals who access or view it. While the laws in India were initially drafted to address physical forms of child sexual exploitation, there was growing concern about whether they were sufficient to tackle crimes involving online material, where an individual might only view such content without distributing, storing, or sharing it.
The case stemmed from an investigation into an individual, S. Harish, who had accessed and viewed CSEAM online. However, unlike cases where individuals distribute, create, or store such material, the facts of this case indicated that Harish’s involvement was limited to viewing the material. The key issue before the courts was whether the act of merely viewing CSEAM, without any further actions like downloading, storing, or sharing it, could be classified as a punishable offense under existing child protection and digital laws.
Facts of the Case
The case began when a child rights organization, the Just Rights for Children Alliance, filed a complaint with the police after identifying Harish’s involvement in accessing online material that was categorized as CSEAM. This complaint was based on evidence gathered from online sources, indicating that Harish had accessed several websites hosting such material.
- Initial Investigation: Upon investigation, law enforcement officials found that Harish had visited websites known to host CSEAM. He had viewed several explicit materials involving minors, but he had not uploaded, stored, or distributed any such content. His activities were limited to viewing these materials on his personal device, which led to the prosecution invoking provisions under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and the Information Technology Act, which is under Section 14 (Use of child for the pornographic purposes) and under Section 67B (i.e., Punishment for publishing, transmitting, or viewing CSEAM) respectively.
- Legal Proceedings in the Special Court: Initially, Harish was convicted in the Special Court for the offense under Section 14 of the POCSO Act, which criminalizes the use of children for pornographic purposes. This section primarily targets the production, possession, and distribution of child pornography. However, the case took a turn when it was argued that the material was only viewed and not distributed or stored, which seemed to imply that there was no intent to engage in the production or the distribution of the material.
- Appeal to the Madras High Court: The case was appealed to the Madras High Court, where the legal argument was raised that simply viewing CSEAM was not enough to be considered a punishable offense under the POCSO Act or the IT Act. The defense argued that since there was no transmission or distribution of the material, Harish’s actions did not amount to a crime under the existing legal framework, which was originally designed to address the creation and distribution of such material.
The Madras High Court agreed with this interpretation and overturned the conviction, stating that viewing CSEAM without any other action (like transmission or storage) did not meet the thresholds set by the law for criminal liability. The judgment in the High Court suggested that the law needed to be more specific in addressing such scenarios, where mere access to CSEAM could potentially be harmful but was not adequately addressed by the statutory provisions.
- Appeal to the Supreme Court: Following the Madras High Court’s decision, the child rights organization Just Rights for Children Alliance filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court’s decision was an erroneous interpretation of the law. The appeal contended that the law should be interpreted broadly to include online viewing of CSEAM as a punishable offense, even without the need for transmission or storage.
The primary concern was that viewing such material, even if not distributed, still contributes to the demand for CSEAM, perpetuating the cycle of exploitation and abuse of children. Additionally, the organization highlighted the fact that such material could contribute to the psychological harm of children depicted in the material, as well as further normalize the exploitation of children in society.
Key Issues in the Case
The case raised several significant legal questions:
- Interpretation of Child Exploitation: The primary issue was whether viewing CSEAM should be treated as a criminal act under existing laws, even when the individual did not participate in the production, distribution, or storage of the material. The question was whether the laws surrounding child sexual abuse should encompass online access and viewing as a form of exploitation, which can perpetuate harm.
- Application of POCSO and IT Act: The court needed to determine whether the provisions of the POCSO Act (specifically Section 14, relating to child pornography) and the IT Act (Section 67B, related to the transmission, publishing, or viewing of CSEAM) covered the act of merely viewing online material without distributing or downloading it.
- Moral and Legal Responsibility: Another issue was the extent of moral and legal responsibility that individuals like Harish bear in the online viewing of such material. Should someone who views CSEAM online be treated as complicit in child sexual abuse, even if no further illegal activity (such as distribution) occurs?
- The Evolution of Laws in the Digital Age: The case also highlighted the need for laws to evolve with technological advancements, where new forms of abuse and exploitation (like online viewing) may not have been clearly anticipated by lawmakers when the laws were initially drafted.
Therefore, in this case, the Supreme Court of India addressed critical issues concerning the possession and viewing of child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM). The Court’s judgment, delivered on September 23, 2024, has significant implications for child protection laws in India.
JUDGMENT
The judgment, pronounced by a division bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, holding forth to the critical issues concerning to the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act), particularly Sections 15 and 67B, respectively. The Court emphasized that the act of viewing CSEAM online, even without downloading or distributing it, constitutes “constructive possession.” This interpretation aligns with the objective of the POCSO Act to prevent the sexual exploitation of children. The Court also addressed the terminology used in legal contexts, directing that the term “child pornography” be replaced with “child sexual exploitation and abuse material” (CSEAM) to accurately reflect the severity of the crime.
Implications
- Clarification of Legal Boundaries: The judgment establishes that merely viewing CSEAM online is a punishable offense under Indian law, thereby closing a potential loophole where individuals might have previously avoided prosecution by not downloading or distributing the material.
- Constructive Possession: By recognizing online viewing as constructive possession, the Court broadens the scope of liability, ensuring that individuals who access such material are held accountable.
- Terminology Update: The directive to use “child sexual exploitation and abuse material” (CSEAM) instead of “child pornography” reflects a more accurate and serious understanding of the crime, aligning legal language with international standards.
- Policy Recommendations: The Court’s suggestions for comprehensive sex education, support services for victims, and public awareness campaigns underscore the need for a holistic approach to combat child sexual exploitation.
RELATED CASE LAWS REFERENCED
In its judgment, the Supreme Court referred to several landmark cases to support its reasoning:
- State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996): This case dealt with the issue of child sexual abuse and the need for stringent laws to protect children. The Court emphasized the importance of safeguarding children from sexual exploitation.
- K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): In this case, the court recognized the right to privacy under the Indian constitution as a fundamental right. The Court’s reasoning in this case was pertinent in discussing the balance between individual rights and the need to protect children from exploitation.
- Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018): This case addressed the issue of human trafficking and the need for effective laws to prevent the trafficking of women and children. The Court’s observations were relevant in the context of preventing the exploitation of children through CSEAM.
- Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020): In this case the issues related to the shutdowns of internet and the right to access information was dealt with. The Court’s analysis was useful in understanding the role of the internet in the proliferation of CSEAM and the need for regulation.
- Shivani Bhatia v. Union of India (2021): This case focused on the protection of children from online sexual abuse and the need for robust legal frameworks to address cybercrimes involving children.
These cases collectively contributed to the Court’s understanding of the complexities involved in child sexual exploitation and the necessity for comprehensive legal measures to protect children in the digital age.
CONCLUSION
To sum up the above mentioned, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case represents a significant advancement in India’s legal framework for protecting children from sexual exploitation. By clarifying the scope of punishable offenses related to CSEAM and updating legal terminology, the Court has reinforced the commitment to safeguarding children’s rights and dignity. This judgment serves as a crucial step toward a more robust and comprehensive approach to combating child sexual exploitation and abuse in India.
FAQs
1. What is the importance of this judgment given by Supreme Court?
The judgment clarifies that merely viewing child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM) online is a punishable offense under Indian law, even without downloading or distributing it.
2. How did the Court interpret “constructive possession”?
The Court treated online viewing of CSEAM as “constructive possession,” making it punishable, even if the material is not stored or shared.
3. What legal provisions were discussed in the case?
The Court discussed Section 15 of the POCSO Act and Section 67B of the IT Act, which cover the possession and viewing of CSEAM.
4. What terminology change did the Court recommend?
The Court recommended replacing “child pornography” with “child sexual exploitation and abuse material” (CSEAM) for more accurate legal representation.
5. What can be the implications of this case in a wide aspect?
The judgment strengthens child protection laws, broadens legal accountability for online access to CSEAM, and promotes more precise legal terminology.