A Bench consisting of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala stated that the term diminishes the seriousness of the offense, as pornography is typically linked to consensual acts between adults.
NEW DELHI: On Monday(23rd Sept), the Supreme Court highlighted that the term “child pornography” is a misnomer, failing to fully represent the severity of the crime against children.
Consequently, it instructed all courts across the country to use the term “child sexual exploitative and abuse material” (CSEAM) in all judicial orders and judgments.
A Bench consisting of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala stated that the term diminishes the seriousness of the offense, as pornography is typically linked to consensual acts between adults.
“It undermines the victimization because the term implies a connection to pornography—conduct that may be legal, involving subjects who participate voluntarily and are capable of consenting,” the Court explained.
These observations were made in a judgment where the Court ruled that simply watching or storing digital material depicting child sexual exploitation can constitute an offense under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), provided there is an intent to share, transmit, or profit from such material.
The Court emphasized that the term “child sexual exploitative and abuse material” (CSEAM) more accurately reflects the nature of these images and videos, which are not merely pornographic but document incidents of child sexual exploitation and abuse or depict such abuse through self-generated visual representations.
“The term ‘child sexual exploitative and abuse material’ (CSEAM) appropriately focuses on the exploitation and abuse of the child, underscoring the criminality of the act and the necessity for a serious and robust response,” it stated.
Consequently, the apex court directed all courts nationwide to stop using the term “child pornography” and instead adopt the term CSEAM in their orders and judgments.
The Supreme Court passed the order in an appeal filed by the NGO Just Right for Children Alliance against a Madras High Court ruling that had stated watching child pornography in private does not amount to an offence.
In that ruling, Justice N Anand Venkatesh had concluded that “merely downloading or viewing child pornography on a personal electronic device does not constitute an offence under the POCSO Act or the Information Technology (IT) Act”.
The High Court made these observations while dismissing charges against S Harish, who had been booked under the POCSO Act and the IT Act for downloading and watching two child pornography videos on his mobile phone. The Court also acknowledged the rising issue of porn addiction among youth and emphasized the need for a balanced approach to address the problem.
This ruling prompted an appeal before the Supreme Court.
In March, the Supreme Court, while hearing the case, criticized the High Court’s ruling, calling the observations “atrocious.”
Case Title: Just Right for Children Alliance and Anr v S Harish and Ors
