Today(on 19th April), Supreme Court reserves judgment on legality of downloading child pornography in India, challenging Madras HC ruling. Case stems from SLP questioning legality under POCSO and IT Law.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India today(on 19th April), has reserved its judgment on a controversial issue regarding the legality of downloading and viewing child pornography under the current legal framework in India.
This case, originating from a Special Leave Petition (SLP), contests a prior decision by the Madras High Court. The court ruled that solely downloading and viewing child pornography does not violate the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act or the Information Technology (IT) Law.
On January 11, when the Madras High Court acquitted a 28-year-old man who had been accused of downloading pornographic content involving children on his mobile device. This decision was met with a mix of outrage and legal scrutiny, prompting a deeper examination of the interpretations of the law concerning such sensitive and morally reprehensible content.
During the Supreme Court hearings, the bench, comprised of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala, indicated the complexity of the legal questions at play.
Chief Justice Chandrachud remarked-
“Arguments concluded, decision pending.”
Senior Advocate H.S. Phoolka, representing the petitioners—two non-governmental organizations—argued fervently, emphasizing the gravity of the case. He stated-
“We have submitted written arguments, along with Respondent No. 1 (S Harish, residing in Chennai).”
The discussions in court touched upon nuanced interpretations of possession and intent within the context of the POCSO Act.
“Somebody merely receiving on his WhatsApp inbox, that’s not an offence,” observed the Chief Justice, prompting a counter from Phoolka who insisted “He is possessing, he has it.”
Justice Pardiwala further questioned the implications of passive possession, asking-
“What were your expectations from him? Were you expecting him to delete it? Is the fact that he didn’t delete it for two years considered an offense?”
The bench also pondered the necessity of intent to share or transmit such content as a precondition for criminal liability, stating-
“The presence of intent to share or transmit is a matter for trial.”
Senior Advocate Swarupama Chaturvedi, representing the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), highlighted the broader issue of child exploitation through pornography. She remarked-
“The issue is that the High Court has focused on children watching pornography, rather than children being exploited, which is a complete misinterpretation of the facts.”
This pointed criticism aimed to redirect the focus toward the exploitation of children in pornography rather than the consumption of such material.
As the Supreme Court reserves its verdict, this case not only underscores the legal intricacies of prosecuting child pornography cases but also sparks a broader discussion on how society addresses pornography addiction among the youth.
ALSO READ:Madras High Court Addresses Generation Z’s Porn Addiction
The Madras High Court had previously noted the detrimental effects of pornography on teenagers, stating-
“Pornography viewing can have adverse effects on teenagers in the long run, impacting their psychological and physical health.”
A Single-Judge Bench acknowledged the issues of porn addiction among teenagers, stating that –
“Generation Z children are confronted with this significant challenge. Rather than condemning and punishing them, society should demonstrate maturity by providing suitable guidance, education, and counseling to aid in overcoming this addiction.”
Case Title:
Justice Rights for Children Alliance and Anr. v. S. Harish & Ors.
