The matter pertains to S. Harish, an alleged owner of child pornography, based on a report from the NCRB. He had more than 100 pornographic files, including two of kid abuse, on his mobile phone. The Madras High Court, which initially quashed the case, had held that simply holding something was not an offence unless there was evidence to show that it was being distributed.

This led the appellants, Just Rights for Children Alliance, to appeal for clarification in the Supreme Court about some legal provisions arrived at under the POCSO and the IT Acts. This case highlights the urgent requirement to enforce adequate laws protecting children from the digital world. It also reminds us of the changing challenges in the digital age. The case raised fundamental legal and ethical issues about whether and to what extent the law should criminalise the possession and storage of child pornography.

Facts of the case:
On 29 January 2020, the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime against Women and Children) wrote to the All-Women Police Station in Ambattur, Chennai, regarding a Cyber Tipline Report by the National Crime Records Bureau. It stated that S. Harish (Respondent No. 1) was a very regular consumer of child pornography.[1] On this basis, an FIR was registered under Section 67B (IT Act) and Section 14(1) of the POCSO Act for downloading/using child pornography.

According to the details in the FIR, Harish had been viewing and downloading child pornographic films through the same site ID and phone number for over two years. The films reportedly involved exploited children, including missing children. When the police confiscated Harish's mobile, the forensic report found two child porn exhibition videos and found more than 100 pornographic videos. Later, the chargesheet altered the first charge recorded under Section 14(1) of POCSO to Section 15(1) of the POCSO Act. Harish approached the Madras High Court with a petition seeking the quashing of the chargesheet and the criminal proceedings.

The Madras High Court set aside proceedings against Harish, holding that mere possession or watching of child pornography is not an offence under either the POCSO or the IT Act unless there is some action of distribution or transmission. This ruling led the appellants to seek a final interpretation relative to the applicable laws from the Supreme Court.

The case gained national headlines while working its way through the court system, with its far-reaching implications for laws meant to protect children.

• Key issues for determination:
• What is the scope of Section 15 of the POCSO, and what is the difference between sub-sections (1), (2), and (3)?
• Is mere viewing, possessing, or storing child pornographic material punishable under POCSO?
• What is the ambit of Section 67B of the IT Act?
• What are the foundational facts needed to invoke the statutory presumption of culpable mental state under Section 30 of the POCSO?
• The statutory presumption and Section 30 of the POCSO could only be triggered by the Special Court at the time of the trial and not by the High Court in a quashing petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C.?

Court's Decision:
By addressing critical issues in the present case, the Supreme Court annulled the High Court's decision. Firstly, it clarified the scope of Section 15 of the POCSO Act, holding that mere possession of child pornography, even without any proof of distribution, is an offence. The Court also stated that the POCSO Act allows punishment for viewing, possessing, or storing such material.[2] On Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, the Court remarked that it is related to the publishing or transmission of child pornography and Supplements POCSO to provide better protection to the child.

The Court observed that, regarding the statutory presumption under Section 30 of POCSO, only the Special Court can invoke this presumption of a culpable mental state, and only at the trial stage; it is not applicable during quashing under Section 482 Cr. P.C. In this way, the Court helped bolster the legal tools available to combat child exploitation, especially by enhancing those dealing with child pornography.

The Court interpreted the POCSO and IT Acts as comprehensive regimes created to fight against child exploitation. The judgement was also clear that permitting individuals to have such material even in private violates the intent of these laws and causes greater societal harm by indirectly promoting demand for this content.

Legal Reasoning:
The majority judgement rendered a rather edifying exposition of statutory provisions, particularly the 2019 amendment to Section 15 of the POCSO Act that made storing pornographic material involving a child with intent to share it a crime.

The judgement also quoted international treaties, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, reinforcing India's commitment to reform domestic laws to conform to international child protection standards. In its judgement, the Court also emphasised the doctrine of strict liability for Section 15 and the necessity of imposing accountability on people solely for having exploitative content. It was mentioned that the consumption of child pornography by the public indirectly powers demand for the content and, as a result, deepens systemic exploitation.

There were no dissenting or concurring opinions, and the unanimous decision elevated the sanctity of the judgement.

The key statutes and case laws mentioned are Section 15 and Section 30 of the POCSO Act, Section 67B of the IT Act, Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017) [3], and Attorney General for India v. Satish (2021).[4]

Analysis:
The Court's way of ensuring balance shows the reality that the POCSO and the IT Act both find their roots in contemporary society and bear a contemporary obligation to their own effectiveness. It is consistent with child welfare policy and shows commitment to fighting child exploitation. Nonetheless, the judgement could have set out clearer procedural guidelines for the effective and fair imposition of these stringent provisions. The absence of concrete guidance regarding the treatment of digital evidence and the safeguarding of privacy rights underscores significant deficiencies in the ruling.

Pros of the Judgement:

• Legislative Intent and Child Protection Standards Alignment: By embracing legislative intent and international child protection standards, the judgement is legally sound, and the rationale of the Court is at par with the domestic child and global child protection policies.
   
• Emphasis on Strict Liability: The Court's emphasis on holding a person responsible or accountable for possessing exploitative material under Section 15 highlights an appreciative approach that considers the evolving nature of cybercrimes.

• Establishment of best practices for digital evidence collection and preservation: The Court should have required the development and enforcement of clear and fair protocols regarding how digital evidence is gathered, disclosed into evidence, and maintains authenticity, preventing any sort of archaeological abuse.
   
• Additionally, a call to establish wide-ranging judicial training and a public campaign around cyber safety would also have enhanced the broader societal impact of the judgement.

Conclusion:
The ruling (Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish) of the Supreme Court reaffirming its previous decision in some of its landmark cases around child protection fortifies an important dimension of law in protecting child exploitation, consequently signifying a note from the higher court around strengthening the rights of the less fortunate group. This judgement is groundbreaking in setting the stage for the future by filling in the gaps in the interpretation of child protection laws. This judgement indicates the need for a multidimensional response to the fight against child-centred cybercrimes.

Apart from the implementation of strict laws, stakeholders also need to work together to provide a safe space in the cyber world. Educators, policymakers, and tech companies all have a key role to play in creating the circumstances through which children and adolescents can explore their digital agency without fear of exploitation.

End Notes:

1. Cyber Tipline Report referenced by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, documented in Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr. v. S. Harish & Ors., Criminal Appeal No(s). 2161-2162 of 2024 (India), available at https://api.sci.gov.in (last visited Dec. 15, 2024).
2. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 2019, § 15, No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 2019 (India).
3. Independent Thought v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 800.
4. Attorney General for India v. Satish, (2021) 4 SCC 1.

Award Winning Article Is Written By: Mr.Rishabh Sharma

Authentication No: DE473207704788-31-1224