CITATION :- 2024 INSC 716
JURISDICTION:- Supreme Court of India(Appellate Jurisdiction)
BENCH NAME Division Bench of two chief justice consisting Hon’ble Justice Dr. D .Y Chandrachud & Hon’ble Justice J.B.Pardiwala.
JUDGEMENT :- September 23, 2024
INTRODUCTION:-
This landmark judgment of supreme court of India on cyber criminal case has defined the legal approach towards the most vulnerable group of the society, who are getting exploit behind the screen of digital technology. The case arose from the Madras High Court acquitted S.Harish arguing that mere possession without distribution will not amount to offence under POCSO iAND IT Act ii. The case arise out of the Special Leave Petition by the Civil Society Organisation Just Rights for Children Alliance (JLC)iii. Supreme Court recently delivered landmark judgment clarifying the penal consequences for the possession, storage, and consumption of Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material (CSEAM),iv overturning a controversial Madras High Court ruling and reflect victim centric framework that reshapes how the abusive material is criminalised and regulated in India.
FACTS OF THE CASE :-
On 29 January 2020, the All-Women’s Police Station Ambattur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu received a letter report of Cyber Tipline of the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), which stated that
S. Harish was an active consumer of child pornography and has accessed downloaded and saved child pornographic material on his mobile phone for the past two years.
Accordingly, an FIR was lodged against him under Section 67B of the Information Technology (IT) Act and 14(1) of the POCSO on the same day. The accused’s mobile phone was seized during the investigation and sent for analysis. On being questioned, the accused had admitted to regular viewing of pornography since college.
The Computer Forensic Analysis Report On August 22 2020 stated that two video files of child pornography activity, along with more than a hundred pornographic video files, were
downloaded and stored in the said mobile phone. Although initially, the FIR was registered for the offence punishable under Section 14(1) of the POCSOv, with the course of investigation and findings, the chargesheet,was filed on September 19 2023 upon completion of the investigation included Section 67B of the IT Actvi and 15(1)of the POCSO. viiThe respondent claimed he was unaware that storing child pornography was a punishable offence and believed it was not illegal. The Madras High Court finally disposed of the chargesheet after accepting his defence of ignorance of the law.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY :-
The Mahila Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruvallur, convicted the accused who was not only guilty of the children but also distrupt the public morals, which is a cognizable offence under Section 67B of the IT Act & 15 (1) of the POCSO Act. The accused, however, filed an appeal against the judgment before the High Court of Madras to quash the chargesheet and criminal proceedings against him. The High Court quashed the judgments on three grounds:
- Section 14(1) of POCSO states that the accused person must have used the child for pornographic purposes, and in the present case, the accused was a mere viewer and hence not liable under this section.
- Section 67B of the IT Act criminalises the publication or transmission of material depicting children in a sexually explicit act. Here, although the accused was a regular viewer of pornography, no evidence exists that he had published or transmitted the same. Hence, his act of watching or downloading child pornography falls out of this section’s purview.
The Kerala High Court in an earlier judgement had stated that “watching an obscene photo or obscene video by a person by itself will not constitute an offence under Section 292
of the Indian Penal Code.” The High Court further stated that Mere possession or storage of any pornographic material is not an offence under the POCSO.
ISSUES RAISED FROM THE CASE:-
- Does the prosecution under the POCSO and the IT ACT require evidence of intent to share profit from child sexual abuse content?
- Whether, mere viewing, possessing or storing of any child pornographic material is punishable under the POCSO?
- What is the true scope of Section 15 of the POCSO and Section 67B of the IT Act?
- The duties and obligation of social platforms in identifying, reporting and reducing child sexual abuse material
CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER:-(JUST RIGHT FOR CHILDREN ALLIANCE & ORS.)
The petitioner had pleaded that the high court judgment on the ruling that mere possession of the child pornographic will not amount to an offence the ruling is against the moral well being of the human being and against the society. And this may result in the further spread of children pornography . Senior Advocate H.S.Phoolka argued that the possesion of child sexual abusive material is itself criminalised and the high court did not heed it, misreading provision and wrongly interpreted section 14 of POCSO instead Sec 15. In the appeal Supreme Court quashed the decision.
CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT:-
The NC-MEC filed the accused had watched child pornography for two years, to which the accused argued that the videos were auto downloaded prior to 2019 amendment and asserted no intent to share. The council contended that the accused was unaware of law due to the govt. Failure to publicise it . Hence ignorance of law along with bona fide belief , would not constitute an offence under section 15 of the POCSO and 67B of the IT Act.
SUPREME COURT ANALYSIS/ RATIO DECENDI :-
On September 23, 2024, the Supreme Court decided that constructive or intangible possession of child pornographic material is also defined as “possession” under Section 15 of the POCSO. The Bench, constituted by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, reversed the Madras High Court order that had cancelled criminal proceedings as the offence under Section 14(1) of POCSO involves active use of a child for pornographic purposes by the accused. And stated “Any act of viewing, distributing or displaying etc., of any child pornographic material by a person over the internet without any actual or physical possession or storage of such material
in any device or in any form or manner would also amount to possession in terms of Section 15 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, provided the said person exercised an invariable degree of control over such material, by virtue of the doctrine of constructive possession.”
OBSERVATION &CASE ANALYSIS:-
In Modern Digital Age Children are growing in an era where internet, mobile phones digital equipments are the fundamental part of everyday life but the challenges rises that the virtual world offers both opportunities as well as the associate challenges which include online harassment , stalking identity theft etc. These crimes are often hidden behind the screen and it is difficult to detect them. To address the issues relating to the child sexual abuse POCSO came into effect in 2012, but at that time the digital crimes were not as prominent as they are today. The development in the internet world has raised a significant question regarding the incapability of the existing laws and the legal system of the country. The IT Act complement the moral and the child centric approach of the POCSO, while IT Act govern the digital platform where such incident can occur.
The POCSO Act provides the rights-based framework, while the IT Act equips investigators with the enforcement tools required in digital environments. Together, they offer a dual-layered protection:
POCSO penalizes the offence based on the victim’s vulnerability and dignity. The IT Act addresses the misuse of platforms and technologies to carry out those offences.
The supreme court of India dealing with such kind of sensitive case has delivered the judgment keeping in the mind about the present and the future consequences of the growing digital crimes behind the veil of ignorance.
Significance of the judgment:-
Supreme court’s landmark ruling criminalizes the mere viewing , storing, or downloading of child abuse content. It mandates replacing the term “child pornography” with CHILD SEXUAL EXPLOITATIVE AND ABUSE MATERIAL(CSEAM), recognizing it as a severe form of exploitation rather than a benign adult indulgence. Broadened interpretation of CSEAM laws and closing loop holes addressing the gap between the law and reality. The replacement of term shows that mere changing of the word shows the gravity and exploitation of minors and focuses to combat and eliminate such digital crime over internet .
It also Strengthens child protection laws: Reinforces the POCSO Act as a tool to combat online child exploitation, ensuring stricter penalties.
Victim-centric approach: Emphasizes victim protection, aiming for quicker content takedowns and advocating for the psychological well-being of child victims. As the victims of cybercrime are affected beyond the financial laws, but also hindered by the feeling of shame and fear leading to secondary victimization.
Tech companies’ role: The ruling calls for tech platforms to report CSEAM cases, enhancing collaboration between law enforcement and online service providers. The tech companies can
provise us a detail information in facilitating child sex trafficking. Data will be gathered through a web based data collection portal.
CHALLENGES OF THE JUDGMENT :-
One of the major and critical challenge of the judgment is Enforcement Gaps and Institutional Weaknesses Despite legislative progress, ground-level enforcement of digital child protection laws police remains riddled with challenges. These include institutional limitations, inadequate training, and inconsistent platform compliance.
Other challenges include Cybercrime Cells and Infrastructure Deficits Most states have cybercrime cells under their state police departments; however, only a few have specialized child protection cyber units. There is significant lack of infrastructure and budget allocation and poor forensic laboratories across jurisdiction. Absence of child centric law and enforcement training Victims are frequently discouraged due to social stigma, hostile police behaviour, and fear of exposure. Police authorities asks insensitive questioning, re- traumatization, due to lack of training how to deal with victims. Ignores content takedown prioritization The judgment fails to focus on the timely removal of harmful content, which is often the immediate need of victims. Overburdening law enforcement Calls for tech platforms to report cases without assessing whether local police are equipped to handle increased caseloads. Fails to address root issues Despite its tough stance, the judgment overlooks nuanced challenges in the rehabilitation and education of offenders, especially minors. Neglects adolescent behaviour, The judgment does not distinguish between consensual adolescent exchanges and exploitative content, risking criminalization of teenage behaviour.
Future Impact of the decision:-
This ruling is a reminder that child protection is a global issue that requires a united response. The Supreme Court’s judgment serves as a clarion call for nations around the world to review their legal frameworks and ensure they are adequately protecting children from digital exploitation. As child pornography and exploitation become increasingly transnational crimes, international collaboration between law enforcement, governments, and tech companies is essential. The supreme court draws a legal roadmap that other countries can look to as they strengthen their own laws. In an age where the internet knows no borders, the judgment also emphasizes the need for greater international cooperation in tackling child pornography and ensuring that laws in various jurisdictions are aligned. Tech platforms of India and digital intermediaries both in India and other country are under increased scrutiny to ensure they are not complicit in enabling child exploitation. This
includes stricter monitoring, reporting mechanisms, and proactive measures to detect and remove illegal content involving children. There is a need for call to action for global child protection.
Conclusion:-
Digital sexual abuse of children refers to the exploitation or harm of minors through digital technologies and internet-enabled platforms. Unlike conventional sexual abuse that involves physical contact, digital abuse is committed remotely, often through smartphones, social media platforms, messaging apps, or even gaming consoles. The perpetrator may be thousands of kilometers away but still able to access, contact, and manipulate the child. The Supreme Court’s ruling is a turning point in India’s fight against online child sexual abuse. It ensures stronger legal protections for children while holding offenders and online platforms accountable. A comprehensive approach, including legal reforms technological innovation, and international collaboration, is necessary to combat the growing CSEAM industry and safeguard children’s rights.
Author: Jyoti Rai
Year of Study: First Year
College: C.M.P. Degree College, University of Allahabad
REFERENCES :-
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012, s 15.
- Information Technology Act 2000, s 67.
- Nandani Kumari, ‘POCSO and Digital Crimes: A Legal Analysis of Child Sexual Abuse in the Digital Era’ (Record of Law, 24 July 2025),
https://recordoflaw.in/pocso-and-digital-crimes-a-legal-analysis-of-child-sexual-abuse-in-the-digital-era/ accessed 29 June 2026.
- K Venkataramanan ‘Why has the SC clarified POCSO provisions?’ The Hindu (29 September 2024),
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/why-has-the-sc-clarified-pocso-provisions-explained/article68695426.ece accessed 29 June 2026.
- ‘UPSC Editorial Analysis: Supreme Court’s Ruling on Online Child Sexual Abuse’ (Insights on India, 6 March 2025),
https://www.insightsonindia.com/2025/03/06/upsc-editorial-analysis-supreme-courts-ruling-on-online-child-sexual-abuse/ accessed 29 June 2026.
- Mansi Kumari, ‘Child-Centric Criminal Liability in the Digital Era: Just Rights for Children Alliance and Anr. v. S. Harish and Ors.’ (2026) 5(1) JLRJS 1384, 1386
- Matt Donnelly, ‘Social Impacts of Cyber Crime’ (EBSCO Research Starters, 2023),
https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/computer-science/social-impacts-cyber-crime accessed 29 June 2026.
- Constitution of India 1950,arts15(3) and 39.
- Code Of Criminal Procedure1973,s 482
- Just Rights for Children Alliance v S Harish (SC, 23 September 2024), https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/8562/8562_2024_1_1501_56073_Judgemen t_23-Sep-2024.pdf accessed 29 June 2026
