New Delhi: The Supreme Court has issued key observations regarding the interpretation of laws pertaining to child pornography, particularly in cases where individuals possess such material. In response to petitions challenging the Madras High Courts ruling, the apex court emphasized distinctions between different forms of involvement with child pornography under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.Failing to delete it is offenceDuring proceedings, the bench, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala, highlighted that receiving a child pornography clip via platforms like WhatsApp may not constitute an offense per se. However, failing to delete or destroy such material after receiving it could be construed as a violation of the POCSO Act. Additionally, the court emphasized that while a child viewing pornography might not be deemed an offense, the exploitation of children in pornography is unequivocally criminal.What is the caseThe Supreme Courts observations arose during hearings on petitions filed by NGOs, including Just Right for Children Alliance and Bachpan Bachao Andoolan. These organizations contested a Madras High Court ruling that dismissed a criminal case against an individual who possessed two child pornography clips on his phone. The High Court had ruled that the act only constituted an offense when the material was distributed, circulated, or publicly exhibited.What was petitioner demandingThe petitioners expressed concerns that the Madras High Courts decision could inadvertently promote the demand for child pornography and contribute to the exploitation of innocent children. Senior advocate HS Phoolka, representing the petitioners, argued that mere possession or storage of child pornography should be considered an offense. He stressed that the burden of proof should shift to the accused to demonstrate inadvertent receipt of such material.Phoolka detailed the origins of the case, citing information received by the Union Home Ministry from a US-based agency monitoring global child pornography. Subsequently, state police seized the mobile phone of the accused, S Harish, leading to the discovery of two child pornography clips. It was revealed that Harish had retained and failed to delete this material over a two-year period.What is the POCSO ActThe Supreme Courts intervention has been solicited to interpret Section 15 of the POCSO Act, which stipulates penalties for individuals who possess child pornography but neglect to delete, destroy, or report it to designated authorities. This legal scrutiny underscores the complexities of prosecuting offenses related to child exploitation and underscores the importance of legal clarity in protecting vulnerable individuals.
